Re: [PATCH 3/5] slab.c: remove branch hint

From: Tim Blechmann
Date: Tue Nov 24 2009 - 06:45:42 EST


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/24/2009 12:28 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> (Pekka Cc:-ed)
>>
>> * Tim Blechmann <tim@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> branch profiling on my nehalem machine showed 99% incorrect branch hints:
>>>
>>> 28459 7678524 99 __cache_alloc_node slab.c
>>> 3551
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Blechmann <tim@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> mm/slab.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
>>> index f70b326..4125fcd 100644
>>> --- a/mm/slab.c
>>> +++ b/mm/slab.c
>>> @@ -3548,7 +3548,7 @@ __cache_alloc_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>>> gfp_t flags, int nodeid,
>>> slab_irq_save(save_flags, this_cpu);
>>> this_node = cpu_to_node(this_cpu);
>>> - if (unlikely(nodeid == -1))
>>> + if (nodeid == -1)
>>> nodeid = this_node;
>>> if (unlikely(!cachep->nodelists[nodeid])) {
>
> That sounds odd to me. Can you see where the incorrectly predicted
> calls are coming from? Calling kmem_cache_alloc_node() with node set
> to -1 most of the time could be a real bug somewhere.

i don't know, if there is any facility in the ftrace branch profiler to
get call graph information, but i can try to manually dump backtraces in
this condition path ...
could be a specific situation on my machine, though ...

tim

- --
tim@xxxxxxxxxx
http://tim.klingt.org

You don't have to call it music if the term shocks you.
John Cage
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAksLx0kACgkQdL+4qsZfVsskOQCglFQG3eYAfdgXoOAHAGTqaLcU
8e0AoIQNbzSRxttGFaXTF3PEh5O4aGEB
=3nmT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/