lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 03/10] jump label v11: base patch
    From
    > 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




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-09-21 19:39    [W:0.042 / U:1.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site