From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A12C600068 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2010 00:18:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by yxe36 with SMTP id 36so16021090yxe.11 for ; Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:18:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B417A37.7060001@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:18:47 +0800 From: Huang Shijie MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm : add check for the return value References: <1262571730-2778-1-git-send-email-shijie8@gmail.com> <20100104122138.f54b7659.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> <4B416A28.70806@gmail.com> <20100104134827.ce642c11.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> In-Reply-To: <20100104134827.ce642c11.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > I think the branch itself could not a big deal but 'likely'. > > Why I suggest is that now 'if (!page)' don't have 'likely'. > As you know, 'likely' make the code relocate for reducing code footprint. > > Why? It was just mistake or doesn't need it? > > I think the CPU will CACHE the `likely' code, and make it runs fast. IMHO, "if (unlikely(page == NULL)) " is better then "if (!page)" ,just like the code in rmqueue_bulk(). > I think Mel does know it. > > wait for Mel's response. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org