Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Nov 1999 09:40:36 -0600 (CST) | From | Oliver Xymoron <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |