On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 06:33, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:18:45PM +0800, keios wrote:
> > 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]>
>
> Was a bit mystified by this as your patch matches what I've got
> in my userspace test harness from 2003.
>
> Here's what I submitted, which is almost the same as yours:
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.11-rc4/2.6.11-rc4-mm1/broken-out/lib-sort-heapsort-implementation-of-sort.patch
>
> Then Zou Nan hai sent Andrew a fix for an off-by-one bug here (merged
> with my patch):
>
> http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.11/2.6.11-mm1/broken-out/lib-sort-heapsort-implementation-of-sort.patch
>
> ..which introduced the performance regression.
>
> And then I subsequently tweaked my local copy for use in another
> project, coming up with your version.
>
> So this passes my test harness just fine (for both even and odd array
> sizes).
>
> Acked-by: Matt Mackall <[email protected]>
I think this patch is correct.
Thanks
Zou Nan hai
-
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]
