From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
To: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>
Cc: aarcange@redhat.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, riel@redhat.com,
peterz@infradead.org, daniel.santos@pobox.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] rbtree: performance and correctness test
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:18:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANN689EfR=aSiwq+7GY1nh4-CkoPSPVx=xycoRAjLPTHAcm5_A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.wg8cv6x53l0zgt@mpn-glaptop>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:35:15 +0200, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:
>> + for (i = 0; i < CHECK_LOOPS; i++) {
>> + init();
>
> Is this init() needed?
So, the reasoning here is that we first have timed loops, where we
don't init between every iteration because it's not needed. Then we
have checked loops, where we init nodes between every iteration so
that they'll have new contents, and then check the rbtree invariants
after each insertion or erase. The init isn't required in the checked
loop either, but it should improve the test coverage a little. It'd be
pointless to run the checked loop more than once if we didn't init...
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
To: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>
Cc: aarcange@redhat.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, riel@redhat.com,
peterz@infradead.org, daniel.santos@pobox.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] rbtree: performance and correctness test
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:18:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANN689EfR=aSiwq+7GY1nh4-CkoPSPVx=xycoRAjLPTHAcm5_A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.wg8cv6x53l0zgt@mpn-glaptop>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:35:15 +0200, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:
>> + for (i = 0; i < CHECK_LOOPS; i++) {
>> + init();
>
> Is this init() needed?
So, the reasoning here is that we first have timed loops, where we
don't init between every iteration because it's not needed. Then we
have checked loops, where we init nodes between every iteration so
that they'll have new contents, and then check the rbtree invariants
after each insertion or erase. The init isn't required in the checked
loop either, but it should improve the test coverage a little. It'd be
pointless to run the checked loop more than once if we didn't init...
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-10 23:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-09 23:35 [PATCH 00/13] rbtree updates Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 01/13] rbtree: reference Documentation/rbtree.txt for usage instructions Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-10 1:45 ` Rik van Riel
2012-07-10 1:45 ` Rik van Riel
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 02/13] rbtree: empty nodes have no color Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-10 10:59 ` Daniel Santos
2012-07-10 10:59 ` Daniel Santos
2012-07-10 23:10 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-10 23:10 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 03/13] rbtree: fix incorrect rbtree node insertion in fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 04/13] rbtree: move some implementation details from rbtree.h to rbtree.c Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-10 12:19 ` Michal Nazarewicz
2012-07-10 12:19 ` Michal Nazarewicz
2012-07-10 23:12 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-10 23:12 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-11 15:48 ` Michal Nazarewicz
2012-07-11 15:48 ` Michal Nazarewicz
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 05/13] rbtree: performance and correctness test Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-10 12:27 ` Michal Nazarewicz
2012-07-10 12:27 ` Michal Nazarewicz
2012-07-10 23:18 ` Michel Lespinasse [this message]
2012-07-10 23:18 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-11 6:14 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-11 6:14 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-11 19:30 ` Daniel Santos
2012-07-11 19:30 ` Daniel Santos
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 06/13] rbtree: break out of rb_insert_color loop after tree rotation Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 07/13] rbtree: adjust root color in rb_insert_color() only when necessary Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 08/13] rbtree: optimize tree rotations in rb_insert_color() Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 09/13] rbtree: optimize color flips and parent fetching " Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 10/13] rbtree: adjust node color in __rb_erase_color() only when necessary Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 11/13] rbtree: optimize case selection logic in __rb_erase_color() Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 12/13] rbtree: optimize tree rotations " Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` [PATCH 13/13] rbtree: optimize color flips " Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-09 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-11 13:23 ` [PATCH 00/13] rbtree updates Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-11 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-12 1:12 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-12 1:12 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-12 14:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-12 14:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-12 14:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-12 14:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-13 0:39 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-07-13 0:39 ` Michel Lespinasse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CANN689EfR=aSiwq+7GY1nh4-CkoPSPVx=xycoRAjLPTHAcm5_A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=walken@google.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=daniel.santos@pobox.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mina86@mina86.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.