Re: [PATCH 0/5] Optimize number of comparisons for heap/heapsort implementaion

[Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 12:41:55PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:55:51AM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 11:21:06AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 11:36:44PM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > The existing implementations of heap/heapsort follow the conventional
> > > > textbook approach, where each heapify operation requires approximately
> > > > 2*log2(n) comparisons. In this series, I introduce a bottom-up variant
> > > > that reduces the number of comparisons during heapify operations to
> > > > approximately log2(n), while maintaining the same number of swap
> > > > operations.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Kuan-Wei
> > > > 
> > > > Kuan-Wei Chiu (5):
> > > >   bcachefs: Optimize eytzinger0_sort() using bottom-up heapsort
> > > >   bcachefs: Introduce parent function for sort_cmp_size()
> > > >   bcachefs: Optimize sort_cmp_size() using bottom-up heapsort
> > > >   bcachefs: Optimize number of comparisons in heap_sift_down
> > > >   bcache: Optimize number of comparisons in heap_sift
> > > > 
> > > >  drivers/md/bcache/util.h |  23 +++++----
> > > >  fs/bcachefs/util.c       | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > >  fs/bcachefs/util.h       |  23 +++++----
> > > >  3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Good stuff
> > > 
> > > While we're looking at this code, we should be doing some cleanup too -
> > > there's no reason for the heap code to be duplicated in bcache and
> > > bcachefs anymore, and it'd also be nice to get fs/bcachefs/eytzinger.h
> > > moved to include/linux and bcache converted to use it.
> > > 
> > > I also would not be surprised if there's another heap implementation in
> > > include/linux; we'll want to check for that and if there is decide which
> > > is worth keeping.
> > >
> > Yes, we have 'min_heap.h' in include/linux.
> 
> So that has the advantage of more readable code - functions instead of
> macros - whereas my version has the type safe interface.
> 
> We could combine the two approaches, and put a type-safe interface on
> top of the min_heap.h code with some small macro wrappers - see
> generic-radix-tree.h for an example of how that's done.

Without modifying the interface provided by min_heap.h, it seems
challenging to implement the functionality of heap_add due to the
relationship with heap_setbackpointer.

Additionally, when looking into the code in generic-radix-tree.h,
should we replace type[0] with type[]? This is because zero-length
arrays are deprecated language features mentioned in document [1].

Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays [1]
> 
> min_heap.h has only one user though? I don't think I can quite believe
> that's the only other code in the kernel using a heap, there must be
> more open coded out there...

I'm not sure why, but it seems that in the kernel, other places using
the heap implement their own subsystem-specific solutions rather than
utilizing a generic heap interface. For instance,
kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c and net/sched/sch_cake.c both have their own
implementations.