Hi, On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Given the patches being busily submitted by trivial patch submitters to >> make use kmem_cache_zalloc(), et. al, I believe we should remove the >> unlikely() tests around the (gfp_flags & __GFP_ZERO) tests, such as: >> >> - if (unlikely((flags & __GFP_ZERO) && objp)) >> + if ((flags & __GFP_ZERO) && objp) >> memset(objp, 0, obj_size(cachep)); >> >> Agreed? If so, I'll send a patch... On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I support it. I guess the rationale here is that if you're going to take the hit of memset() you can take the hit of unlikely() as well. We're optimizing for hot call-sites that allocate a small amount of memory and initialize everything themselves. That said, I don't think the unlikely() annotation matters much either way and am for removing it unless people object to that. On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Recently Steven tried to gather the information. > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1072767 > Maybe he might have a number for that. That would be interesting, sure. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href