lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: AVL trees vs. Red-Black trees
    On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Jamie Lokier wrote:

    > Oliver Xymoron wrote:
    > > > If somebody find this interesting I can provide a patch to add the
    > > > include/linux/rbtree.h and lib/rbtree.c that will provde rbtree support.
    > >
    > > I'd like to take a look at this, I've been looking at putting some more
    > > uniform tree structures in the kernel (post 2.4).
    >
    > fwiw, I did a splay tree (aka. self-adjusting tree) for similar reasons
    > that anyone is welcome to take a peek at. The self-adjusting property
    > should theoretically provide cache-like behaviour when most of the
    > lookups are to relatively few nodes in the tree. The downside is that
    > the tree is modified by lookups.

    Unfortunately, that means that there's no way it can even begin to scale
    on SMP - all "readers" need exclusive locks unless you can somehow
    guarantee that there'll only ever be one reader/writer. In some instances,
    it might make sense to have completely unlocked per-processor trees
    mapping onto shared structures, but it seems a little painful.

    --
    "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.020 / U:31.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site