Re: [PATCH 4/6] rbtree: faster augmented insert

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 07/20/2012 08:31 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:

+++ b/lib/rbtree.c
@@ -88,7 +88,8 @@ __rb_rotate_set_parents(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new,
  		root->rb_node = new;
  }

-void rb_insert_color(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root)
+inline void rb_insert_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root,
+				rb_augment_rotate *augment)
  {
  	struct rb_node *parent = rb_red_parent(node), *gparent, *tmp;

@@ -152,6 +153,7 @@ void rb_insert_color(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root)
  					rb_set_parent_color(tmp, parent,
  							    RB_BLACK);
  				rb_set_parent_color(parent, node, RB_RED);
+				augment(parent, node);

+static inline void dummy(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new) {}
+
+void rb_insert_color(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root) {
+	rb_insert_augmented(node, root, dummy);
+}
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(rb_insert_color);

While the above is what I would have done, the
question remains "what if the compiler decides
to not inline the function after all, and does
not remove the call to the dummy function in
rb_insert_color as a result?

Do we have some way to force inlining, so the
compiler is more likely to optimize out the
dummy call?

  static void __rb_erase_color(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_node *parent,
diff --git a/lib/rbtree_test.c b/lib/rbtree_test.c
index 2dfafe4..5ace332 100644
--- a/lib/rbtree_test.c
+++ b/lib/rbtree_test.c
@@ -67,22 +67,37 @@ static void augment_callback(struct rb_node *rb, void *unused)
  	node->augmented = augment_recompute(node);
  }

+static void augment_rotate(struct rb_node *rb_old, struct rb_node *rb_new)
+{
+	struct test_node *old = rb_entry(rb_old, struct test_node, rb);
+	struct test_node *new = rb_entry(rb_new, struct test_node, rb);
+
+	/* Rotation doesn't change subtree's augmented value */
+	new->augmented = old->augmented;
+	old->augmented = augment_recompute(old);
+}

Is it worth documenting that rb_old is always the
parent of rb_new (at least, it seems to be in this
patch) ?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]