Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:38:01 -0400 (EDT) | From | Rajesh Venkatasubramanian <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree |
| |
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > > > If it were just a list, maybe RCU would be appropriate. It might be > > rather write-heavy though ? I think I played with an rwsem instead > > of a sem in the past too (though be careful if you try this, as for > > no good reason the return codes are inverted ;-() > > Yes, I think all the common paths have to write, in case the > uncommon paths (truncation and swapout) want to read: the wrong > way round for any kind of read-write optimization, isn't it?
In common workloads e.g., add libc mapping using __vma_prio_tree_insert, mostly you do not add new nodes to the tree. Instead, you just add to a vm_set list. I am currently considering using rwsem to optimize such cases. Similarly __vma_prio_tree_remove can also be optimized in some common cases. I don't know whether it will help. Let us see...
Rajesh
- 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/
| |