Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix Unlikely(x) == y

[Geoff Levand <geoffrey.levand@am.sony.com>]

On 02/16/2008 09:42 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:33:16 +0100
> Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 09:25:52AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:08:01 +0100
>> > Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > The patch below was not yet tested. If it's correct as it is,
>> > > please comment. ---
>> > > Fix Unlikely(x) == y
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > you found a great set of bugs..
>> > but to be honest... I suspect it's just best to remove unlikely
>> > altogether for these cases; unlikely() is almost a
>> > go-faster-stripes thing, and if you don't know how to use it you
>> > shouldn't be using it... so just removing it for all wrong cases is
>> > actually the best thing to do imo.
>> 
>> Well, eventhough the author may not know how to use it, "unlikely" at
>> least indicates the intention of the author, or his knowledge of what
>> should happen here. I'd suggest leaving it where it is because the
>> authot of this code is in best position to know that this branch is
>> unlikely to happen, eventhough he does not correctly use the macro.
>>
> 
> you have more faith in the authors knowledge of how his code actually behaves than I think is warranted  :)
> Or faith in that he knows what "unlikely" means.
> I should write docs about this; but unlikely() means:
> 1) It happens less than 0.01% of the cases.
> 2) The compiler couldn't have figured this out by itself
>    (NULL pointer checks are compiler done already, same for some other conditions)
> 3) It's a hot codepath where shaving 0.5 cycles (less even on x86) matters
>    (and the author is ok with taking a 500 cycles hit if he's wrong)
> 
> If you think unlikely() means something else, we should fix what it maps to towards gcc ;)
> (to.. be empty ;)

Well, I didn't consider what today's compiler does, but used it as a general
indicator, because I think that code will be around a long time.  If you show
me some test results that prove it causes harm I might consider removing it. 

-Geoff