Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755129Ab0AUJzQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:55:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755077Ab0AUJzI (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:55:08 -0500 Received: from bld-mail17.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.102]:57772 "EHLO mail.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755051Ab0AUJzH (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:55:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:54:34 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Artem Bityutskiy Cc: Don Mullis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, airlied@redhat.com, andi@firstfloor.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: more scalable list_sort() Message-ID: <20100121095434.GA25842@discord.disaster> References: <87fx609i29.fsf@gmail.com> <1264065775.3032.18.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1264065775.3032.18.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1953 Lines: 51 On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:22:55AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 20:51 -0800, Don Mullis wrote: > > The use of list_sort() by UBIFS looks like it could generate long > > lists; this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x > > performance gain as list length approaches the L2 cache size. > > > > Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, > > gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object > > size is 552 bytes versus 405 for Mark J. Roberts' code. > > > > Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a POT, > > and to roughly the same degree, so here are results for a range of > > 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc > > overhead; random initial order. > > > > Could you please add a debugging function which would be compiled-out > normally, and which would check that on the output 'list_sort()' gives > really sorted list, and number of elements in the list stays the same. > You'd call this function before returning from list_sort(). Something > like: > > #ifdef DEBUG_LIST_SORT > static int list_check(void *priv, struct list_head *head, > int (*cmp)(void *priv, struct list_head *a, > struct list_head *b)) > { > /* Checking */ > } > #else > #define list_check(priv, head, cmp) 0 > #endif > > This will provide more confidence in the algorithm correctness for > everyone who modifies 'list_sort()'. I'd suggest the same method as employed in lib/sort.c - a simple userspace program that verifies correct operation is included in lib/sort.c.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/