On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 18:10 +0800, Ying Xue wrote: > On 09/16/2017 05:58 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 17:36 +0800, Ying Xue wrote: > > > On 09/16/2017 05:26 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 17:02 +0800, Ying Xue wrote: > > > > > On 09/16/2017 03:50 PM, Thomas Meyer wrote: > > > > > > Use common library function rather than explicitly coding > > > > > > some variant of it yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Meyer <tho...@m3y3r.de> > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Ying Xue <ying....@windriver.com> > > > > > > > > Are you sure you want to do this? > > > > > > > > Note the comment above nameseq_find_subseq > > > > > > > > * Very time-critical, so binary searches through sub-sequence array. > > > > > > > > What impact does this change have on performance? > > > > > > Sorry, I couldn't see any essential difference between this new > > > implementation and the original one except that the former tries to use > > > the library function - bsearch() to replace the original binary search > > > algorithm implemented in TIPC itself. Therefore, I don't think the > > > change will have a big impact on performance. > > > > > > If I miss something, please let me know. > > > > Comparison via a function pointer in bsearch is slower > > than direct code without the function call overhead. > > > > Right, but probably we can tolerate the slight sacrifice here.
What part of "very time critical" have you verified and benchmarked as inconsequential? Please post your results.
