Re: [PATCH for-5.1 5/5] qom: Make info qom-tree sort children more efficiently

["Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>]

* Markus Armbruster (armbru@redhat.com) wrote:
> Commit e8c9e65816 "qom: Make "info qom-tree" show children sorted"
> sorts children the simple, stupid, quadratic way.  I thought the
> number of children would be small enough for this not to matter.  I
> was wrong: there are outliers with several hundred children, e.g ARM
> machines nuri and smdkc210 each have a node with 513 children.

Big Power systems can have thousands.

> While n^2 sorting isn't noticeable in normal, human usage even for
> n=513, it can be quite noticeable in certain automated tests.  In
> particular, the sort made device-introspect-test even slower.  Commit
> 3e7b80f84d "tests: improve performance of device-introspect-test" just
> fixed that by cutting back its excessive use of "info qom-tree".
> Sorting more efficiently makes sense regardless, so do it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
> ---
>  qom/qom-hmp-cmds.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/qom/qom-hmp-cmds.c b/qom/qom-hmp-cmds.c
> index 4032c96089..8861a109d5 100644
> --- a/qom/qom-hmp-cmds.c
> +++ b/qom/qom-hmp-cmds.c
> @@ -94,25 +94,23 @@ typedef struct QOMCompositionState {
>  
>  static void print_qom_composition(Monitor *mon, Object *obj, int indent);
>  
> -static int qom_composition_compare(const void *a, const void *b, void *ignore)
> +static int qom_composition_compare(const void *a, const void *b)
>  {
> -    return g_strcmp0(object_get_canonical_path_component(a),
> -                     object_get_canonical_path_component(b));
> +    return g_strcmp0(object_get_canonical_path_component(*(Object **)a),
> +                     object_get_canonical_path_component(*(Object **)b));
>  }
>  
>  static int insert_qom_composition_child(Object *obj, void *opaque)
>  {
> -    GQueue *children = opaque;
> -
> -    g_queue_insert_sorted(children, obj, qom_composition_compare, NULL);
> +    g_array_append_val(opaque, obj);
>      return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static void print_qom_composition(Monitor *mon, Object *obj, int indent)
>  {
> +    GArray *children = g_array_new(false, false, sizeof(Object *));
>      const char *name;
> -    GQueue children;
> -    Object *child;
> +    int i;
>  
>      if (obj == object_get_root()) {
>          name = "";
> @@ -122,11 +120,14 @@ static void print_qom_composition(Monitor *mon, Object *obj, int indent)
>      monitor_printf(mon, "%*s/%s (%s)\n", indent, "", name,
>                     object_get_typename(obj));
>  
> -    g_queue_init(&children);
> -    object_child_foreach(obj, insert_qom_composition_child, &children);
> -    while ((child = g_queue_pop_head(&children))) {
> -        print_qom_composition(mon, child, indent + 2);
> +    object_child_foreach(obj, insert_qom_composition_child, children);
> +    g_array_sort(children, qom_composition_compare);
> +
> +    for (i = 0; i < children->len; i++) {
> +        print_qom_composition(mon, g_array_index(children, Object *, i),
> +                              indent + 2);
>      }
> +    g_array_free(children, TRUE);

So I think that's OK, so :

Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>

Can you just convince me that 'TRUE' in the array_free?

Dave

>  }
>  
>  void hmp_info_qom_tree(Monitor *mon, const QDict *dict)
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 
> 
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK