Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: remove unlikly NULL from kfree

[Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>]

On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 01:02 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
>> > But those are _error handling paths_ (at least supposed to be). I
>> > wonder which call-sites are responsible for this. Can frtrace help us
>> > here?
>>
>> I am not sure why you call these error paths.
>>
>> I submitted the same patch two years ago, and you are still holding the same
>> argument.
>>
>> http://www.archivum.info/linux.kernel/2006-04/msg06042.html
>>
>> Have you used likely profiler? These are real numbers. If you insist on
>> calling them error paths then error paths are obviously the norm.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> I am not denying the results, I am just saying that they don't make much
> sense to me. Like I said, I would love to see the actual call-sites to
> prove my argument wrong.

OK, so according to Steven, audit_syscall_exit() is one such call-site
that shows up in the traces. I don't really understand what's going on
there but if it is sane, maybe that warrants the removal of unlikely()
from kfree(). Hmm?