From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751266AbWDUHW5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:22:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751256AbWDUHW5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:22:57 -0400 Received: from mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.3]:3480 "EHLO mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751255AbWDUHW4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:22:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:22:54 -0400 (EDT) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@d.namei To: Daniel Walker cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kfree(NULL) In-Reply-To: <200604210703.k3L73VZ6019794@dwalker1.mvista.com> Message-ID: References: <200604210703.k3L73VZ6019794@dwalker1.mvista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Daniel Walker wrote: > I included a patch , not like it's needed . Recently I've been > evaluating likely/unlikely branch prediction .. One thing that I found > is that the kfree function is often called with a NULL "objp" . In fact > it's so frequent that the "unlikely" branch predictor should be inverted! > Or at least on my configuration. It would be helpful to collect some stats on this so we can look at the ratio. - James -- James Morris