Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752724Ab0AULrV (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:47:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752674Ab0AULrU (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:47:20 -0500 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230]:45815 "EHLO mgw-mx03.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751821Ab0AULrU (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:47:20 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: more scalable list_sort() From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org To: Dave Chinner Cc: Don Mullis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, airlied@redhat.com, andi@firstfloor.org In-Reply-To: <20100121095434.GA25842@discord.disaster> References: <87fx609i29.fsf@gmail.com> <1264065775.3032.18.camel@localhost> <20100121095434.GA25842@discord.disaster> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:44:19 +0200 Message-Id: <1264074259.3032.25.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2010 11:44:25.0708 (UTC) FILETIME=[15043AC0:01CA9A8F] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2130 Lines: 52 On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 20:54 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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.... Yeah, that's also an option. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий) -- 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/