From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx122.postini.com [74.125.245.122]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36DD86B005A for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1343419375.32120.48.camel@twins> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] rbtree: faster augmented erase From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:02:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1342787467-5493-6-git-send-email-walken@google.com> References: <1342787467-5493-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com> <1342787467-5493-6-git-send-email-walken@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michel Lespinasse Cc: riel@redhat.com, daniel.santos@pobox.com, aarcange@redhat.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 05:31 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > +static inline void > +rb_erase_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root, > + rb_augment_propagate *augment_propagate, > + rb_augment_rotate *augment_rotate)=20 So why put all this in a static inline in a header? As it stands rb_erase() isn't inlined and its rather big, why would you want to inline it for augmented callers?=20 You could at least pull out the initial erase stuff into a separate function, that way the rb_erase_augmented thing would shrink to something like: rb_erase_augmented(node, root) { struct rb_node *parent, *child; bool black; __rb_erase(node, root, &parent, &child, &black); augmented_propagate(parent); if (black) __rb_erase_color(child, parent, root, augment_rotate); } -- 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: email@kvack.org