On 01.12.23 20:59, Steven Rostedt wrote:
From: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Running my yearly branch profiler to see where likely/unlikely annotation
may be added or removed, I discovered this:
correct incorrect % Function File Line
------- --------- - -------- ---- ----
0 457918 100 page_try_dup_anon_rmap rmap.h 264
[..]
458021 0 0 page_try_dup_anon_rmap rmap.h 265
That looks like a handy tool!
I thought it was interesting that line 264 of rmap.h had a 100% incorrect
annotation, but the line directly below it was 100% correct. Looking at the
code:
if (likely(!is_device_private_page(page) &&
unlikely(page_needs_cow_for_dma(vma, page))))
It didn't make sense. The "likely()" was around the entire if statement
(not just the "!is_device_private_page(page)"), which also included the
"unlikely()" portion of that if condition.
Yes, that was clearly misplaced.
If the unlikely portion is unlikely to be true, that would make the entire
if condition unlikely to be true, so it made no sense at all to say the
entire if condition is true.
What is more likely to be likely is just the first part of the if statement
before the && operation. It's likely to be a misplaced parenthesis. And
after making the if condition broken into a likely() && unlikely(), both
now appear to be correct!
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
But
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
stable, really? Why?
Fixes:fb3d824d1a46c ("mm/rmap: split page_dup_rmap() into page_dup_file_rmap() and page_try_dup_anon_rmap()")
and does it even fix a real bug?
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
