Re: [PATCH 3/5] slab.c: remove branch hint

[Tim Blechmann <tim@klingt.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/24/2009 12:28 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>> (Pekka Cc:-ed)
>>
>> * Tim Blechmann <tim@klingt.org> wrote:
>>
>>> branch profiling on my nehalem machine showed 99% incorrect branch hints:
>>>
>>>    28459  7678524  99 __cache_alloc_node             slab.c
>>>   3551
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Blechmann <tim@klingt.org>
>>> ---
>>>  mm/slab.c |    2 +-
>>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
>>> index f70b326..4125fcd 100644
>>> --- a/mm/slab.c
>>> +++ b/mm/slab.c
>>> @@ -3548,7 +3548,7 @@ __cache_alloc_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>>> gfp_t flags, int nodeid,
>>>       slab_irq_save(save_flags, this_cpu);
>>>       this_node = cpu_to_node(this_cpu);
>>> -     if (unlikely(nodeid == -1))
>>> +     if (nodeid == -1)
>>>               nodeid = this_node;
>>>       if (unlikely(!cachep->nodelists[nodeid])) {
> 
> That sounds odd to me. Can you see where the incorrectly predicted
> calls are coming from? Calling kmem_cache_alloc_node() with node set
> to -1 most of the time could be a real bug somewhere.

i don't know, if there is any facility in the ftrace branch profiler to
get call graph information, but i can try to manually dump backtraces in
this condition path ...
could be a specific situation on my machine, though ...

tim

- -- 
tim@klingt.org
http://tim.klingt.org

You don't have to call it music if the term shocks you.
  John Cage
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAksLx0kACgkQdL+4qsZfVsskOQCglFQG3eYAfdgXoOAHAGTqaLcU
8e0AoIQNbzSRxttGFaXTF3PEh5O4aGEB
=3nmT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----