ok, thank you all. 2014-09-16 0:52 GMT+08:00 Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda at redhat.com>: > I agree with Greg. When dealing with the latencies that we deal with due > to different IO operations (networking, storage), it's mostly not worth the > trouble. I think the main reason we didn't actually put it to use is that > we forgot we've had this macro defined, and it really wasn't worth the > trouble. I do think though that we can keep it in mind, and when developing > add these notations when appropriate even if only for code readability. > > Thanks, > Yehuda > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Gregory Farnum <greg at inktank.com> wrote: > >> I don't know where the file came from, but likely/unlikely markers are >> the kind of micro-optimization that isn't worth the cost in Ceph dev >> resources right now. >> -Greg >> >> >> On Monday, September 15, 2014, Tim Zhang <cofol1986 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hey guys, >>> After reading ceph source code, I find that there is a file named >>> common/likely.h and it implements the function likely() and unlikey() which >>> will optimize the prediction of code branch for cpu. >>> But there isn't any place using these two functions, I am curious >>> about why the developer of ceph not using these two functions to achieve >>> more performance. Can anyone provide some hints? >>> BR >>> >> >> >> -- >> Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/attachments/20140916/79b3026c/attachment.htm>
 |