On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 06:05:20PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:04:46AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > From: Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx>
> >
> > When adding element(s) to a non-empty set, code merged the two lists and
> > sorted the result. With many individual 'add element' commands this
> > causes substantial overhead. Make use of the fact that
> > existing_set->init is sorted already, sort only the list of new elements
> > and use list_splice_sorted() to merge the two sorted lists.
> >
> > Add set_sort_splice() and use it for set element overlap detection and
> > automerge.
> >
> > A test case adding ~25k elements in individual commands completes in
> > about 1/4th of the time with this patch applied.
> >
> > Joint work with Pablo.
> >
> > Fixes: 3da9643fb9ff9 ("intervals: add support to automerge with kernel elements")
> > Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for picking it up, I missed the automerge code being very
> similar.
>
> I worked on a patch to move the whole set adjustment to a separate step
> after evaluating commands, but it's a bit larger effort as it requires
> to combine overlap detection, auto merge and element deletion. With
> simple appending new elements in eval phase and reacting upon
> EXPR_F_KERNEL and EXPR_F_REMOVE flags, I guess it's possible to update
> the whole set in one go.
You mean, appending if they come in order as in your test ruleset? Not
sure what you are suggesting.
