[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090110202315.GE20611@logfs.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:23:16 +0100
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add b+tree library
On Sat, 10 January 2009 20:41:03 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> writes:
>
> > Also, to elaborate on that answer, I'm going to use this as a sort of
> > hash table for wireless, where it ensures better scalability than a pure
> > hashtable from quiet environments (say wireless off on an airplane) to
> > your wireless test lab (100+ access points)
>
> Is there any particular reason you can't use the standard rbtrees
> for that?
Can't think of any. You can use linked lists as well. Whether you want
to is a different matter.
Key difference is the number of cachelines you need to find a particular
entry. rbtrees have a fanout of sqrt(3), so for a million elements (to
pick a random example) you need about 25 cachelines with rbtrees and
about 5-16 with btrees. Closer to 5 if keys and pointers are small and
cachelines are large, closer to 16 if keys and pointers are large and
cachelines are small.
Jörn
--
The key to performance is elegance, not battalions of special cases.
-- Jon Bentley and Doug McIlroy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists