3 ms·
Sure. In this case though the list doesn't change from boot to boot, or for that matter from system to system; if we hit a worst-case we would notice before th
by cperciva 3y ago
Sure. In this case though the list doesn't change from boot to boot, or for that matter from system to system; if we hit a worst-case we would notice before the release shipped.
Also, the worst case would be "systems take 2 ms extra time to boot" so it's not exactly a disaster.
- whimsicalism 3y ago> though the list doesn't change from boot to boot, or for that matter from system to system; if we hit a worst-case we would notice before the release shipped. Wait what - why don't you just sort it at build time then? I'm probably misunderstanding what you are saying or maybe just a premature optimization. e: Nevermind, read further in the thread and saw you answered [0] [0]: https://twitter.com/cperciva/status/1659561673278226432 https://twitter.com/cperciva/status/1659561673278226432
- cperciva 3y agoWe might end up doing that. A quicksort takes it from 2 ms down to 40 us though, and doing the sorting at build time would take a lot of linker magic. (The SYSINITs are records in separate object files which are marked as going into a particular ELF section, so we don't actually have a complete list of them until we finish linking the kernel.)
- alberth 3y agoAny consideration to use Radix sort. It’s typically the fastest. It’s also a stable sort algorithm. https://youtu.be/BeoCbJPuvSE https://youtu.be/BeoCbJPuvSE