* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> [241108 20:40]:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 10:19:37PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> >* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> [241107 21:55]:
> >> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 06:00:35PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> >> >* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> [241019 22:46]:
> >> >> The check in mab_calc_split() is to make sure the gap between
> >> >> [0, split] won't be too small. But we don't pass the correct min.
> >> >>
> >> >> First we may encounter a pivot[split] smaller than min. For example:
> >> >>
> >> >> mt_init_flags(mt, 0);
> >> >> for (count = 0; count <= 240; count++) {
> >> >> mas_set(&mas, count);
> >> >> mas_store(&mas, xa_mk_value(count));
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> On splitting root for storing 240, the pivot[split] is smaller than min.
> >> >> This result a huge (pivot[split] - min).
> >> >
> >> >This is fine.
> >> >
> >> >There is an open work item to make it more accurate at higher levels,
> >> >but it's not a problem as it is.
> >> >
> >> >Each level upwards needs a better 'minimum span', meaning that the node
> >> >should have at least mas.min - mas.min + level * something.
> >>
> >> Don't follow this.
> >>
> >> First, I guess it is mas.max - mas.min?
> >>
> >
> >No, the idea is that we could do better if we could keep the data more
> >densely packed.
> >
> >If we have singletons (all range of 1), and we have 10,000 singletons,
> >then a parent node with 0 - 128 and a sibling of 129-257 makes no sense,
> >there is nothing that can be inserting into the parents last two slots
> >- we can't split singletons smaller so we should have done a better job
> >at splitting.
> >
> >If you think of how this grows today, we split then rebalance until the
> >left node is full and we have to split again. This could be better
> >optimised to avoid multiple rebalances by doing something to push more
> >data to the left based on the span of the children and the nodes. But
> >we'd want to keep enough so some modifications to each node doesn't
> >cause a rebalance in the opposite direction.
> >
> >So a minimum span of parent nodes one level up from the leaves would be
> >16 * 10 = 160, so when we split we can push more to the left to try and
> >get to 160 while keeping the right node sufficient. The math of the
> >span would change based on how far up the tree we go, but would be
> >easier to maintain.
> >
> >I'd probably still want to split it 50/50 the first time, but it might
> >make sense to push more on the next rebalance. so 10 => 6|5, 6|10 =>
> >9|5, but maybe it's not worth the effort. I'm starting to think so,
> >considering it's been ineffective to date. There is a chance that the
> >active area gets moved to the more-full node and ends up splitting
> >sooner anyways..
> >
> >All of this will probably change when dense nodes come anyways.
> >
> >> Then there is sth related to level. But I don't see level is used for
> >> calculation. Would you mind sharing more your original thought?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >It works today for leaves, somewhat.
> >> >
> >>
> >> To me it works by coincidence.
> >
> >Seems like it.
> >
> >>
> >> The condition check is:
> >>
> >> (bn->pivot[split] - min) < (slot_count - 1)
> >>
> >> while slot_count is a constent, 16 for leaf node.
> >>
> >> And we always pass 0 as min, the condition for leaf is:
> >>
> >> bn->pivot[split] < 15
> >>
> >> For the mmap world, per my understanding, we won't expect an address is smaller
> >> than 15.
> >
> >There are other users, but I think we should just drop this attempt at
> >fancy stuff.
> >
>
> You mean "set mid_split = 0 and drop the min argument all together" mentioned
> in another mail?
Yes, please. The more I think about this, the more I think we're
wasting time trying to predict the future. And, although fun, it
usually doesn't work out.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Second prev_l_mas.min is not initialized for the first iteration. This
> >> >> means on splitting leaf node, this value is mostly taking no effect.
> >> >
> >> >No, it is set to 0. Not initialized would cause random data loss.
> >> >
> >> >See MA_STATE() in the header.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Right, I want to say not initialized to the value we want.
> >>
> >> Will be more careful next time.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Since we are now calculating the split of mas->node, we should use the
> >> >> mas->min instead of prev_l_mas.min.
> >> >
> >> >This sounds reasonable, but considering what this number is used for, I
> >> >don't see how it is working as well as it is today. I will need to look
> >> >deeper into this.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> CC: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> CC: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> CC: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> lib/maple_tree.c | 2 +-
> >> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/lib/maple_tree.c b/lib/maple_tree.c
> >> >> index 894dc5e9436e..c2d4b188646c 100644
> >> >> --- a/lib/maple_tree.c
> >> >> +++ b/lib/maple_tree.c
> >> >> @@ -3357,7 +3357,7 @@ static void mas_split(struct ma_state *mas, struct maple_big_node *b_node)
> >> >> if (mas_push_data(mas, height, &mast, false))
> >> >> break;
> >> >>
> >> >> - split = mab_calc_split(mas, b_node, &mid_split, prev_l_mas.min);
> >> >> + split = mab_calc_split(mas, b_node, &mid_split, mas->min);
> >> >> mast_split_data(&mast, mas, split);
> >> >> /*
> >> >> * Usually correct, mab_mas_cp in the above call overwrites
> >> >> --
> >> >> 2.34.1
> >> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Wei Yang
> >> Help you, Help me
>
> --
> Wei Yang
> Help you, Help me
