[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 1/13] Qsort
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:39:34AM +0100, 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)

Mostly agreed. Except:

a) the glibc version is not actually all that optimized
b) it's nice that it's not recursive
c) the three-way median selection does help avoid worst-case O(n^2)
behavior, which might potentially be triggerable by users in places
like XFS where this is used

I'll probably whip up a simpler version tomorrow or Monday and do some
size/space benchmarking. I've been meaning to contribute a qsort for
doubly-linked lists I've got lying around as well.

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
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:0.100 / U:4.416 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site