likely and unlikely

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <DA31205F-41FA-4AC3-888E-2001210EE623 at samsco.org>
            Scott Long <scottl at samsco.org> writes:
: On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:11 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003131346270.51476 at fledge.watson.org>
: >            Robert Watson <rwatson at FreeBSD.org> writes:
: > : 
: > : On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Bruce Evans wrote:
: > : 
: > : >> My point is: Handle with care!!!  Trust your compiler/CPU
: > : >> predictors/... - most of the time, they are smarter than you are ;)
: > : >
: > : > These macros may have useful 15-25 years ago for i386, i486 and
: > : > Pentium1, since CPU branch predictors were either nonexistent or not
: > : > so good. After that, CPU branch predictors became quite good.  The
: > : > macros should have been mostly unused 15-25 years ago too, since they
: > : > optimize for unreadability and unwritability.  Fortunately they are
: > : > rarely used in FreeBSD.  They were imported from NetBSD in 2003 where
: > : > they are used more (306 instances in 2005 NetBSD /sys vs 28 instances
: > : > in 2004 FreeBSD /sys; there are 2208 instances of likely() in 2004
: > : > linux-2.6.10).
: > : 
: > : I think it would be reasonable to expect that people deploy branch
: > : prediction macros (as with prefetch, etc) only where there's specific
: > : measurements that indicate they are important to have there -- at the
: > : very least, pmc data, but ideally also benchmarking data.
: > 
: > They are more useful on architectures where you have branches that
: > tell the CPU if they are likely or unlikely to be taken...
: > 
: 
: And that's a very good point, one that Bruce really failed to
: address.  Not only is branch prediction useful for MIPS and ARM, I
: suspect that it's also useful for Atom.

The PMC work will tell us that...

Warner