[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CBC8C98.1090802@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:06:16 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
CC: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
kernel@...ts.fedoraproject.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
warthog9@...nel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste of memory?
On 10/18/2010 09:48 AM, Eric Paris wrote:
>
> 1) IMA uses radix trees which end up wasting 500 bytes per inode because
> the key is too sparse. I've got a patch which uses an rbtree instead
> I'm testing and will send along shortly. I found it funny working on
> the patch to see that Documentation/rbtree.txt says "This differs from
> radix trees (which are used to efficiently store sparse arrays and thus
> use long integer indexes to insert/access/delete nodes)" Which flys in
> the face of this report.
>
Radix trees can efficiently store data associated with sparse keys *as
long as the keys are clustered*. For random key distributions, they
perform horribly.
-hpa
--
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