Messages in this thread | | | From | Konstantin Khlebnikov <> | Date | Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:16:44 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] lib/radix: add universal radix_tree_fill_range |
| |
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com> wrote: >> I'm not at all against the idea of having a tree which supports ranges, except that we already have one; the interval tree. Did you investigate using the interval tree for your use case? > > I am continuing to investigate, but that is orthogonal to whether > Konstantin's changes are an improvement for the radix implementation. > Hmm, would we have ended up with two data-structures if a range-based > radix was available?
Interval tree is a augmented rb-tree. AFAIK it doesn't support RCU lookup without special dances with sequential counters - some branches disappears from RCU readers during rebalance.
> > The benefits I see is that it simplifies insertion as it no longer > needs to explicitly manage the order of the entries, and, iiuc, let's > the user skip the sibling-to-head conversion when it is not needed > which simplifies lookups.
| |