[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Za1Ml/ZUBXdYXOIt@visitorckw-System-Product-Name>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:55:51 +0800
From: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
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 11:21:06AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, we have 'min_heap.h' in include/linux.
> Would you or Coli be interested in taking that on as well?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists