Hello Steven,
On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 11:11:42AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 12:24:09 +0000 Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com wrote:
Whoops; s/CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL/PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES/ in both places in my reply.
Note, it could still be useful ;-)
I've been running my yearly branch profiling build on both my main workstation and my server. I post the results from my server publicly (this is updated every night):
https://rostedt.org/branches/current
If you check out the branch_annotated file, you can see there's still quite a bit that gets it wrong. Some of these is because of bad assumptions by the developer, others is because the code moved around causing new branches to make later annotated branches go the opposite way.
I am starting to look and remove some of these likely/unlikely hint that are 100% wrong on some very sane configuration (arm64 baremetal hosts running a webserver).
So far, these are the fixes I have in flight now.
* https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260105-dcache-v1-1-f0d904b4a7c2@debian.org/ * https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260106-blk_unlikely-v1-1-90fb556a6776@debian.o... * https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260105-annotated_idle-v1-1-10ddf0771b58@debian...