[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 1/13] Qsort
    On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:

    > Felipe Alfaro Solana <> writes:
    > >
    > > AFAIK, XOR is quite expensive on IA32 when compared to simple MOV
    > > operatings. Also, since the original patch uses 3 MOVs to perform the
    > > swapping, and your version uses 3 XOR operations, I don't see any
    > > gains.
    > Both are one cycle latency for register<->register on all x86 cores
    > I've looked at. What makes you think differently?
    > -Andi (who thinks the glibc qsort is vast overkill for kernel purposes
    > where there are only small data sets and it would be better to use a
    > simpler one optimized for code size)
    How about a shell sort? if the data is mostly sorted shell sort beats
    qsort lots of times, and since the data sets are often small in-kernel,
    shell sorts O(n^2) behaviour won't harm it too much, shell sort is also
    faster if the data is already completely sorted. Shell sort is certainly
    not the simplest algorithm around, but I think (without having done any
    tests) that it would probably do pretty well for in-kernel use... Then
    again, I've known to be wrong :)

    Jesper Juhl

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.020 / U:4.336 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site