lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] lib/sort: Use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 23:29:40 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 21/02/2019 09.21, George Spelvin wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * parent - given the offset of the child, find the offset of the parent.
>> + * @i: the offset of the heap element whose parent is sought. Non-zero.
>> + * @lsbit: a precomputed 1-bit mask, equal to "size & -size"
>> + * @size: size of each element
>> + *
>> + * In terms of array indexes, the parent of element j = i/size is simply
>> + * (j-1)/2. But when working in byte offsets, we can't use implicit
>> + * truncation of integer divides.
>> + *
>> + * Fortunately, we only need one bit of the quotient, not the full divide.
>> + * size has a least significant bit. That bit will be clear if i is
>> + * an even multiple of size, and set if it's an odd multiple.
>> + *
>> + * Logically, we're doing "if (i & lsbit) i -= size;", but since the
>> + * branch is unpredictable, it's done with a bit of clever branch-free
>> + * code instead.
>> + */
>> +__attribute_const__ __always_inline
>> +static size_t parent(size_t i, unsigned int lsbit, size_t size)
>> +{
>> + i -= size;
>> + i -= size & -(i & lsbit);
>> + return i / 2;
>> +}
>> +
>
> Really nice :) I had to work through this by hand, but it's solid.

Thank you! Yes, the way the mask doesn't include the low-order bits
that don't matter anyway is a bit subtle.

When the code is subtle, use lots of comments. The entire reason
for making this a separate helper function is to leave room for
the large comment.

>> + unsigned const lsbit = size & -size; /* Used to find parent */
>
> Nit: qualifier before type, "const unsigned". And this sets ZF, so a
> paranoid check for zero size (cf. the other mail) by doing "if (!lsbit)
> return;" is practically free. Though it's probably a bit obscure doing
> it that way...

Actually, this is a personal style thing which I can ignore for the sake
of the kernel, but I believe that it's better to put the qualifier
*after* the type. This is due to C's pointer declaration syntax.

The standard example of the issue is:

typedef char *pointer;
const char *a;
char const *b;
char * const c;
const pointer d;
pointer const e;

Now, which variables are the same types?

The answer is that a & b are the same (mutable pointer to const
char), and c, d & e are the same (const pointer to mutable char).

I you make a habit of putting the qualifier *after* the type, then
a simple "textual substitution" mental model for the typedef works,
and it's clear that c and e are the same.

It's also clear that b cannot be represented by the typedef because
the const is between "char" and "*", and you obviously can't do that
with the typedef.

But if you put the qualifier first, it's annoying to rememeber why
a and d are not the same type.

So I've deliberately cultivated the style of putting the qualifier
after the type.

But if the kernel prefers it before...

>> + if (!n)
>> + return;
>
> I'd make that n <= 1. Shouldn't be much more costly.

(Actually, it's "num <= 1"; n is the pre-multiplied form so
n <= 1 can only happen when sorting one one-byte value.)

I actually thought about this and decided not to bother. I did it
this way during development to stress the general-case code. But
should I change it?

=== NEVER MIND ===

I had written a long reply justifying leaving it alone to save one
instruction when the light dawned: I can do *both* tests in one
step with
size_t n = num * size, a = (num/2) * size;
unsigned const lsbit = size & -size; /* Used to find parent */

if (!a) /* num < 2 || size == 0 */
return;

So now everyone's happy.

> Nice!

Thank you. May I translate that into Acked-by?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-14 01:05    [W:0.055 / U:1.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site