Re: [PATCH] Profile likely/unlikely macros

Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  +	if (likeliness->type & LIKELY_UNSEEN) {
>  +		if (atomic_dec_and_test(&likely_lock)) {
>  +			if (likeliness->type & LIKELY_UNSEEN) {
>  +				likeliness->type &= (~LIKELY_UNSEEN);
>  +				likeliness->next = likeliness_head;
>  +				likeliness_head = likeliness;
>  +			}
>  +		}
>  +		atomic_inc(&likely_lock);

hm, good enough I guess.  It does need a comment explaining why we
don't just do spin_lock().

It'd be a bit saner to do

	if (!test_and_set_bit(&foo, 0)) {
		...
		clear_bit(&foo, 0);
	}

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Profile likely/unlikely macros
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Profile likely/unlikely macros
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Profile likely/unlikely macros
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: C++ pushback
• Next by Date: [PATCH] sched: fix evaluation of skip_for_load in move_tasks()
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] Profile likely/unlikely macros
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Profile likely/unlikely macros
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]