[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nl6kvjxg4gia5pbfb4jibxusvavmlwumrvy3swfs33ciub32wt@2kmeqnqycxxh>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 11:21:06 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>
Cc: colyli@...e.de, bfoster@...hat.com, jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw,
linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Optimize number of comparisons for heap/heapsort
implementaion
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 11:36:44PM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The existing implementations of heap/heapsort follow the conventional
> textbook approach, where each heapify operation requires approximately
> 2*log2(n) comparisons. In this series, I introduce a bottom-up variant
> that reduces the number of comparisons during heapify operations to
> approximately log2(n), while maintaining the same number of swap
> operations.
>
> Thanks,
> Kuan-Wei
>
> Kuan-Wei Chiu (5):
> bcachefs: Optimize eytzinger0_sort() using bottom-up heapsort
> bcachefs: Introduce parent function for sort_cmp_size()
> bcachefs: Optimize sort_cmp_size() using bottom-up heapsort
> bcachefs: Optimize number of comparisons in heap_sift_down
> bcache: Optimize number of comparisons in heap_sift
>
> drivers/md/bcache/util.h | 23 +++++----
> fs/bcachefs/util.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> fs/bcachefs/util.h | 23 +++++----
> 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
Good stuff
While we're looking at this code, we should be doing some cleanup too -
there's no reason for the heap code to be duplicated in bcache and
bcachefs anymore, and it'd also be nice to get fs/bcachefs/eytzinger.h
moved to include/linux and bcache converted to use it.
I also would not be surprised if there's another heap implementation in
include/linux; we'll want to check for that and if there is decide which
is worth keeping.
Would you or Coli be interested in taking that on as well?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists