[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1343419466.32120.50.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:04:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc: riel@...hat.com, daniel.santos@...ox.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] rbtree: faster augmented insert
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 05:31 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> +static void augment_rotate(struct rb_node *rb_old, struct rb_node *rb_new)
> +{
> + struct test_node *old = rb_entry(rb_old, struct test_node, rb);
> + struct test_node *new = rb_entry(rb_new, struct test_node, rb);
> +
> + /* Rotation doesn't change subtree's augmented value */
> + new->augmented = old->augmented;
> + old->augmented = augment_recompute(old);
> +}
> +static inline void augment_propagate(struct rb_node *rb)
> +{
> + while (rb) {
> + struct test_node *node = rb_entry(rb, struct test_node, rb);
> + node->augmented = augment_recompute(node);
> + rb = rb_parent(&node->rb);
> + }
> +}
So why do we have to introduce these two new function pointers to pass
along when they can both be trivially expressed in the old single
augment function?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists