Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751733AbdFIOdE (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:33:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46596 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751554AbdFIOdD (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:33:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:32:50 -0700 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Jan Kara Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mhocko@suse.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] rbtree: Cache leftmost node internally Message-ID: <20170609143250.GB20320@linux-80c1.suse> References: <20170608180329.11457-1-dave@stgolabs.net> <20170608180329.11457-2-dave@stgolabs.net> <20170609074347.GA15968@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170609074347.GA15968@quack2.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1172 Lines: 36 On Fri, 09 Jun 2017, Jan Kara wrote: > >Looks good to me. Just one nit below: Thanks for having a look! > >> @@ -150,6 +161,7 @@ extern void __rb_erase_color(struct rb_node *parent, struct rb_root *root, >> >> static __always_inline struct rb_node * >> __rb_erase_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root, >> + struct rb_node **leftmost, >> const struct rb_augment_callbacks *augment) >> { >> struct rb_node *child = node->rb_right; >> @@ -157,6 +169,9 @@ __rb_erase_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root, >> struct rb_node *parent, *rebalance; >> unsigned long pc; >> >> + if (leftmost && node == *leftmost) >> + *leftmost = rb_next(node); >> + >> if (!tmp) { >> /* >> * Case 1: node to erase has no more than 1 child (easy!) > >Why do you propagate e.g. 'leftmost' down to __rb_erase_augmented() when >you could just handle everything within rb_erase_augmented_cached? >Similarly for other functions like __rb_insert()... It would seem like less >churn and I don't see downside to it... I propagate args so we don't have to duplicate the checks between the regular and augmented rbtrees. Thanks, Davidlohr