[PATCH] low performance of lib/sort.c , kernel 2.6.18

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



It is a non-standard heap-sort algorithm implementation because the
index of child node is wrong . The sort function still outputs right
result, but the performance is O( n * ( log(n) + 1 ) ) , about 10% ~
20% worse than standard algorithm .

Signed-off-by: keios <[email protected]>
-----
diff -Nraup a/lib/sort.c b/lib/sort.c
--- a/lib/sort.c	2006-09-20 11:42:06.000000000 +0800
+++ b/lib/sort.c	2006-09-27 21:26:38.000000000 +0800
@@ -49,15 +49,15 @@ void sort(void *base, size_t num, size_t
	  void (*swap)(void *, void *, int size))
{
	/* pre-scale counters for performance */
-	int i = (num/2) * size, n = num * size, c, r;
+	int i = (num/2 - 1) * size, n = num * size, c, r;

	if (!swap)
		swap = (size == 4 ? u32_swap : generic_swap);

	/* heapify */
	for ( ; i >= 0; i -= size) {
-		for (r = i; r * 2 < n; r  = c) {
-			c = r * 2;
+		for (r = i; r * 2 + size < n; r  = c) {
+			c = r * 2 + size;
			if (c < n - size && cmp(base + c, base + c + size) < 0)
				c += size;
			if (cmp(base + r, base + c) >= 0)
@@ -69,8 +69,8 @@ void sort(void *base, size_t num, size_t
	/* sort */
	for (i = n - size; i >= 0; i -= size) {
		swap(base, base + i, size);
-		for (r = 0; r * 2 < i; r = c) {
-			c = r * 2;
+		for (r = 0; r * 2 + size < i; r = c) {
+			c = r * 2 + size;
			if (c < i - size && cmp(base + c, base + c + size) < 0)
				c += size;
			if (cmp(base + r, base + c) >= 0)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux