[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1505555908.16316.5.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 02:58:28 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>, Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>,
jon.maloy@...csson.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] tipc: Use bsearch library function
On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 17:36 +0800, Ying Xue wrote:
> On 09/16/2017 05:26 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 17:02 +0800, Ying Xue wrote:
> > > On 09/16/2017 03:50 PM, Thomas Meyer wrote:
> > > > Use common library function rather than explicitly coding
> > > > some variant of it yourself.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
> >
> > Are you sure you want to do this?
> >
> > Note the comment above nameseq_find_subseq
> >
> > * Very time-critical, so binary searches through sub-sequence array.
> >
> > What impact does this change have on performance?
>
> Sorry, I couldn't see any essential difference between this new
> implementation and the original one except that the former tries to use
> the library function - bsearch() to replace the original binary search
> algorithm implemented in TIPC itself. Therefore, I don't think the
> change will have a big impact on performance.
>
> If I miss something, please let me know.
Comparison via a function pointer in bsearch is slower
than direct code without the function call overhead.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists