Why not also CC the PPC maintainers as well? I am not certain, but I
think they may be reached at:
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
On 01/27/2011 04:12 AM, Coly Li wrote:
Current BUG_ON() arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h does not use unlikely(),
in order to get better branch predict result, source code may have to call
BUG_ON() with unlikely() explicitly. This is not a suggested method
to use BUG_ON().
This patch adds unlikely() inside BUG_ON implementation on PPC
code, callers can use BUG_ON without explicit unlikely() now.
I don't have any PPC hardware to compile and test this fix, any feedback
of this patch is welcome.
Signed-off-by: Coly Li<bosong...@taobao.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge<jer...@goop.org>
Cc: David Daney<dda...@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Wang Cong<xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com>
Cc: Yong Zhang<yong.zha...@gmail.com>
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
index 065c590..10889a6 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
#define _ASM_POWERPC_BUG_H
#ifdef __KERNEL__
+#include<linux/compiler.h>
#include<asm/asm-compat.h>
/*
@@ -71,7 +72,7 @@
unreachable(); \
} while (0)
-#define BUG_ON(x) do { \
+#define __BUG_ON(x) do { \
if (__builtin_constant_p(x)) { \
if (x) \
BUG(); \
@@ -85,6 +86,8 @@
} \
} while (0)
+#define BUG_ON(x) __BUG_ON(unlikely(x))
+
This is the same type of frobbing you were trying to do to MIPS.
I will let the powerpc maintainers weigh in on it, but my opinion is
that, as with MIPS, BUG_ON() is expanded to a single machine
instruction, and this unlikely() business will not change the generated
code in any useful way. It is thus gratuitous code churn and
complexification.
David Daney
#define __WARN_TAINT(taint) do { \
__asm__ __volatile__( \
"1: twi 31,0,0\n" \
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
