On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 01:59:08PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> One final quick test if you feel like it: I've never been sure that
> the last comparison in type_size_sort() is correct. Maybe it should be
> the other way around. Currently it reads:
>
> return a < b ? -1 : (a > b);
I think it is right. At least it should put recent things near the
front of the array, just as we are putting bigger things there.
> > orig | 31.4M (100%) | 54s (100%)
> > 10 | 44.0M (140%) | 169s (310%)
> > 20 | 37.7M (120%) | 232s (428%)
> > 40 | 33.6M (107%) | 331s (608%)
> > 80 | 30.9M ( 99%) | 473s (868%)
> > 160 | 29.4M ( 94%) | 696s (1279%)
> [...]
> While keeping the size comparison commented out, you could try to
> replace this line with:
>
> return b < a ? -1 : (b > a);
No, it's not better. A few of the pack sizes are better, but some of
them are worse. And the CPU times are still quite bad. Here are the
numbers:
orig | 31.4M (100%) | 54s (100%)
10 | 45.6M (145%) | 158s (292%)
20 | 39.2M (125%) | 205s (377%)
40 | 35.1M (112%) | 275s (505%)
80 | 32.4M (103%) | 388s (713%)
160 | 30.6M ( 98%) | 581s (1067%)
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html