On 10/04/2024 07:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:16:53PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-04-10 at 12:13 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Wouldn't the best way forward be to revert
>>> 5bec1d6bc5e3 and revisit the whole in v18?
>>
>> Also consider commits b840508644 and bcb14f4abc.
>
> Indeed. These are also linked.
I don't feel the urge to revert this:
- It's not broken as such, we're just discussing better ways to
implement it. We could also do nothing, and revisit this in v18. The
only must-fix issue is some compiler warnings IIUC.
- It's a pretty localized change in reorderbuffer.c, so it's not in the
way of other patches or reverts. Nothing else depends on the binaryheap
changes yet either.
- It seems straightforward to repeat the performance tests with whatever
alternative implementations we want to consider.
My #1 choice would be to write a patch to switch the pairing heap,
performance test that, and revert the binary heap changes.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
