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

    >> Doesn
    >
    > I suppose you were missing a 't'.

    Sorry sentence was eaten (I had to type it twice because the webmail
    thingy eat it first try and probably didn't finish
    it second time). I did not doubt your trace point number :)

    What I meant is that the number of trace points does not really
    matter much for binary search, unless you're going to gigantic numbers.
    100 is still searched in only a few tries.

    What matters is just how many tables you need to walk and that
    only scales with the number of modules, not the number of trace points.

    for ( each module )
    binary search in section

    Advantage: no additional memory, no setup code other than a simple
    sort, less code overall.

    Also most modules are small so a binary search try is likely very
    fast.

    The methology is also long proven for *_user() exception handling
    and always worked well here.

    >> 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.
    >
    > And on removing a module.

    On removing you simply free the module table, no real work to do.

    > Perhaps it can be cleaned up. But I have no issues with it now, and
    > using a hash (basic data structures 101) is not where the complexity
    > comes in.

    Hash tables are not complex in themselves, but all the code to
    maintain them still adds up. I think considerable parts of the
    new code were simply that. IMHO that can be done simpler
    at no real loss of functionality or performance.

    -Andi



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-09-21 20:51    [W:4.262 / U:0.300 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site