[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090413134435.GA10143@localhost>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:44:35 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <wfg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] radix-tree: add radix_tree_prev_hole()
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:29:52AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:19:51 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > +unsigned long radix_tree_prev_hole(struct radix_tree_root *root,
> > + unsigned long index, unsigned long max_scan)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < max_scan; i++) {
> > + if (!radix_tree_lookup(root, index))
> > + break;
> > + index--;
> > + if (index == LONG_MAX)
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return index;
> > +}
>
> argh. This is about as inefficient as we could possibly make it :(
Right, a dumb loop!
> Really, this function should dive into radix-tree internals and walk
> individual radix_tree_node.slots[] arrays. And heck, it can peek at
> radix_tree_node.count and _bypass_ entire nodes, too.
Good idea! In fact I'm planning such a smart version. It will be using
radix_tree_lookup_slot() to access the ->count member, in order to
check if the whole slot can be bypassed.
radix_tree_next_hole() is another optimization candidate.
But that will be a post 2.6.30 stuff.
The current dumb-but-obvious-right version is OK for 2.6.30, because
in most radix_tree_prev_hole() invocations the actual loop count will
be merely 1.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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