lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/6] rbtree: faster augmented insert
On 07/20/2012 08:31 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:

> +++ b/lib/rbtree.c
> @@ -88,7 +88,8 @@ __rb_rotate_set_parents(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new,
> root->rb_node = new;
> }
>
> -void rb_insert_color(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root)
> +inline void rb_insert_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root,
> + rb_augment_rotate *augment)
> {
> struct rb_node *parent = rb_red_parent(node), *gparent, *tmp;
>
> @@ -152,6 +153,7 @@ void rb_insert_color(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root)
> rb_set_parent_color(tmp, parent,
> RB_BLACK);
> rb_set_parent_color(parent, node, RB_RED);
> + augment(parent, node);

> +static inline void dummy(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new) {}
> +
> +void rb_insert_color(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root) {
> + rb_insert_augmented(node, root, dummy);
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(rb_insert_color);

While the above is what I would have done, the
question remains "what if the compiler decides
to not inline the function after all, and does
not remove the call to the dummy function in
rb_insert_color as a result?

Do we have some way to force inlining, so the
compiler is more likely to optimize out the
dummy call?

> static void __rb_erase_color(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_node *parent,
> diff --git a/lib/rbtree_test.c b/lib/rbtree_test.c
> index 2dfafe4..5ace332 100644
> --- a/lib/rbtree_test.c
> +++ b/lib/rbtree_test.c
> @@ -67,22 +67,37 @@ static void augment_callback(struct rb_node *rb, void *unused)
> node->augmented = augment_recompute(node);
> }
>
> +static void augment_rotate(struct rb_node *rb_old, struct rb_node *rb_new)
> +{
> + struct test_node *old = rb_entry(rb_old, struct test_node, rb);
> + struct test_node *new = rb_entry(rb_new, struct test_node, rb);
> +
> + /* Rotation doesn't change subtree's augmented value */
> + new->augmented = old->augmented;
> + old->augmented = augment_recompute(old);
> +}

Is it worth documenting that rb_old is always the
parent of rb_new (at least, it seems to be in this
patch) ?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-26 00:21    [W:0.233 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site