On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:09 AM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-10-17 at 15:10 +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote: > > Michal mentioned lib/union_find.c during a discussion. I think we may > > have a use for in BPF verifier (kernel/bpf/verifier.c) that could > > further simplify the code. Eduard (who wrote the code shown below) > > probably would have a better idea. > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 06:19:10AM GMT, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:28:27PM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote: > > > > This patch series adds KUnit tests for the union-find implementation > > > > and optimizes the path compression in the uf_find() function to achieve > > > > a lower tree height and improved efficiency. Additionally, it modifies > > > > uf_union() to return a boolean value indicating whether a merge > > > > occurred, enhancing the process of calculating the number of groups in > > > > the cgroup cpuset. > > > > > > I'm not necessarily against the patchset but this probably is becoming too > > > much polishing for something which is only used by cpuset in a pretty cold > > > path. It probably would be a good idea to concentrate on finding more use > > > cases. > > Hi Shung-Hsi, > > [...] > > > Squinting a bit get_loop_entry() looks quite like uf_find() and > > update_loop_entry() looks quite link uf_union(). So perhaps we could get > > a straight-forward conversion here. > > I'll reply tomorrow, need to sleep on it. I don't like the idea. Let's keep get_loop_entry/update_loop_entry as-is.
