[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:0.233 / U:9.640 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site