Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:42:40 -0300 | From | Werner Almesberger <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Generalize prio_tree (1/3) |
| |
Rajesh Venkatasubramanian wrote: > I thought about this, but this will lead to a very intrusive patch.
Possibly yes, unfortunately :-( All places where a node's keys change would have to be updated, yes. Are there cases where vm_pgoff, vm_start, or vm_end can change without doing a prio_tree_insert or vma_prio_tree_insert afterwards ? If not, the key update could just be moved into vma_prio_tree_insert and vma_prio_tree_add.
> We have to change the meaning of vm_start and vm_end or increase > the size of vm_area_struct.
Nope :-) We already have space for adding one more long, i.e. h_index. So all we need to do it to calculate and set it before going to prio_tree.
For r_index, one can use what I've described in the last mail.
> I am only worried about the micro-performance loss due to > get_index in the hot-paths such as vma_prio_tree_insert.
Yes, it starts to look fairly heavy for what it does ...
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina werner@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |