Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:18 AM > To: Chao Yu > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 08/11] f2fs: fix wrong condition for unlikely > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:44:43AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > > Hi Jaegeuk, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 6:47 AM > > > To: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Cc: Jaegeuk Kim > > > Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 08/11] f2fs: fix wrong condition for unlikely > > > > > > This patch fixes the wrongly used unlikely condition. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > > > index 42a16c1..36b0d47 100644 > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > > > @@ -932,7 +932,7 @@ static void do_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, bool is_umount) > > > /* Here, we only have one bio having CP pack */ > > > sync_meta_pages(sbi, META_FLUSH, LONG_MAX); > > > > > > - if (unlikely(!is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_ERROR_FLAG))) { > > > + if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_ERROR_FLAG)) { > > > > Maybe use likely(!is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_ERROR_FLAG)) or > > > > if (unlikely(is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_ERROR_FLAG))) > > return; > > > > is more appropriate. How do you think? > > Currently I'd like to put this without any likely or unlikely. > Best thing is to measure some performance how this would make effect on. I think we could get little improvement of performance if we use likely or unlikely here. So if you'd like leave it without pre-judgment, it will be ok. Let's just leave it as it was. :) Thanks, > Until then, it'd be better to do without it, since apparently this should > not be unlikely. > > How about you? > Can we compare both of them explicitly? > > Thanks, > > > > > > clear_prefree_segments(sbi); > > > release_dirty_inode(sbi); > > > F2FS_RESET_SB_DIRT(sbi); > > > -- > > > 1.8.5.2 (Apple Git-48) > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and > > > search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck > > > Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code > > > search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > > > Linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
