linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: more scalable list

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87ljfn9lig.fsf@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:38:15 -0800
From:	Don Mullis <don.mullis@...il.com>
To:	dedekind@...radead.org
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, airlied@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: more scalable list_sort()

Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> writes:

> Don made IMO a good proposal for the caller to add cond_reshed() in its
> 'cmp()' callback, if needed. Shouldn't that work fine?

In the list_sort() implementation I posted, there was an O(n) loop that
contained no calls back to cmp().  The V2 implementation I'm testing
right now fixes that -- all inner loops will call back to cmp().  It's
also a bit faster, though ~100 bytes bigger.

If there's any other objection to pushing responsibility for calling
cond_resched() back to the client, via the cmp() routine, please, let's
hear it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/