Re: [PATCH 06/11] maple_tree: Introduce mas_replace_entry() to directly replace an entry

["Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@Oracle.com>]

* Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@bytedance.com> [230818 05:40]:
> 
> 
> 在 2023/8/17 01:40, Liam R. Howlett 写道:
> > * Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@bytedance.com> [230816 09:11]:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 在 2023/8/1 00:48, Liam R. Howlett 写道:
> > > > * Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@bytedance.com> [230731 08:39]:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 在 2023/7/27 00:08, Liam R. Howlett 写道:
> > > > > > * Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@bytedance.com> [230726 04:10]:
> > > > > > > If mas has located a specific entry, it may be need to replace this
> > > > > > > entry, so introduce mas_replace_entry() to do this. mas_replace_entry()
> > > > > > > will be more efficient than mas_store*() because it doesn't do many
> > > > > > > unnecessary checks.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This function should be inline, but more functions need to be moved to
> > > > > > > the header file, so I didn't do it for the time being.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I am really nervous having no checks here.  I get that this could be
> > > > > > used for duplicating the tree more efficiently, but having a function
> > > > > > that just swaps a value in is very dangerous - especially since it is
> > > > > > decoupled from the tree duplication code.
> > > > > I've thought about this, and I feel like this is something the user
> > > > > should be guaranteed. If the user is not sure whether to use it,
> > > > > mas_store() can be used instead.
> > > > 
> > > > Documentation often isn't up to date and even more rarely read.
> > > > mas_replace_entry() does not give a hint of a requirement for a specific
> > > > state to the mas.  This is not acceptable.
> > > > 
> > > > The description of the function also doesn't say anything about a
> > > > requirement of the maple state, just that it replaces an already
> > > > existing entry.  You have to read the notes to find out that 'mas must
> > > > already locate an existing entry'.
> > > > 
> > > > > And we should provide this interface
> > > > > because it has better performance.
> > > > 
> > > > How much better is the performance?  There's always a trade off but
> > > > without numbers, this is hard to justify.
> > > I have implemented a new version of this pachset, and I will post it
> > > soon.
> > > 
> > > I tested the benefits of mas_replace_entry() in userspace.
> > > The test code is attached at the end.
> > > 
> > > Run three times:
> > > mas_replace_entry(): 2.7613050s 2.7120030s 2.7274200s
> > > mas_store():         3.8451260s 3.8113200s 3.9334160s
> > 
> > This runtime is too short, we should increase the number of elements or
> > loops until it is over 10 seconds.  This will make the setup time
> > and other variances less significant and we can use the command run time
> > as a rough estimate of performance. IIRC 134 was picked for a rough
> > estimate of an average task size so maybe increase the loops.
> I changed nr_entries to 1000, and the measured numbers are as follows:
> mas_replace_entry():	20.0375820s
> mas_store():		28.6175720s
> It can be seen that mas_store() is still nearly 40% slower.

To be clear, I didn't doubt your numbers or want you to rerun the
benchmark.  I was just saying we should increase the loops now that the
tree is faster.  It should allow for you to not need to use clock count
to see benefits - although they will always be more accurate.

Thanks,
Liam