From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757150Ab0LKAHe (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:07:34 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:60387 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756663Ab0LKAHd (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:07:33 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=+c36koQ5Dcj/1qolKHjtkYAGXvrVJRRiKMp+84F5sLg= c=1 sm=0 a=jAmd2lEfFiEA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=G2pEFJyoj6u9pRdmD5IA:9 a=EouEY517HSJCprInfmYA:7 a=6u95JcEF_nyXq4VkYhqpJrPRuUcA:4 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 04/10] sched: Change pick_next_task_rt from unlikely to likely From: Steven Rostedt To: Gregory Haskins Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <4CFD59CD0200005A00077F6C@novprvoes0310.provo.novell.com> References: <20101207015834.196176991@goodmis.org> <20101207021329.185936860@goodmis.org> <4CFD59CD0200005A00077F6C@novprvoes0310.provo.novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:07:29 -0500 Message-ID: <1292026049.5015.1539.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:46 -0700, Gregory Haskins wrote: > My feeling is that generally speaking, if the branch is workload dependent, we should probably not annotate it at all and let the CPUs branch-predictor do its thing. I guess what I am not 100% clear on is how these annotations affect the BPU. I.e. is it a static decision point or can the BPU still "learn" if the annotation is particularly wrong for a given workload? For the former, I think we should just remove this particular annotation (and there are others that need review). For the latter, this is obviously the right annotation we should be using in this particular case. > You need to get a better email client ;-) OK, if I just remove the likely() do you Ack it? -- Steve