Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:36:00 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/10] jump label v11: base patch | From | "Andi Kleen" <> |
| |
> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 16:41 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: >> > >> > So there are ~150 tracepoints, but this code is also being proposed >> for >> > use with 'dynamic debug' of which there are > 1000, and I'm hoping for >> > more users moving forward. >> >> Even 1000 is fine to walk, but if it was sorted a binary search >> would be much faster anyways. That is then you would still >> need to search for each module, but that is a relatively small >> number (< 100) > > xfs has > 100 tracepoints
Doesn > >> >> > Also, I think the hash table deals nicely with modules. >> >> Maybe but it's also a lot of code. And it seems to me >> that it is optimizing the wrong thing. Simpler is nicer. > > I guess simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. I find hashes easier > to deal with than binary searching sorted lists. Every time you add a > tracepoint, you need to resort the list.
The only time you add one is when you load a module, right? When you do that you only sort the section of the new module.
> Hashes are much easier to deal with and scale nicely. I don't think > there's enough rational to switch this to a binary list.
Well problem is that the code is very complicated today. I suspect this could be done much simpler if it wasn't so overengin
-Andi
| |