[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1233793066.7390.34.camel@johannes.local>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:17:46 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add b+tree library
Let me get back to this...
> > The IDR code there wasn't very well designed and still has holes. The
> > radix-tree code afaik is solid, but look at all the stuff it does!
>
> Yeah, its a bit of a mess, but solvable, as radix trees show.
To be fair, it hasn't been attempted yet though.
> B-tree's however have one thing over RB-trees, B-trees can be made
> RCU-safe whereas RB-trees cannot be -- the only problem is that Joern's
> doesn't do that.
>
> I've been poking at my B-tree implementation but got distracted by the
> mutex spin stuff, its still buggy (still the insert sibling overflow --
> the rest should be ok-ish, although I need a hard look at the memory
> barriers).
Joern may need arbitrary key lengths, don't. But I've just looked around
a little:
* radix trees are completely unsuitable for use as a sort of hash table
because of their behaviour when keys are not at last mostly
contiguous
* rbtrees require lots of boilerplate code, and have much worse cache
behaviour
In my use case, tracking the wifi APs around you, you have to scale from
a single one to >1k (yes, it's happening!), and lookups better be fast
because you might be doing them a lot (dozens of times per second).
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists