[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130813221928.GE28996@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:19:28 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] idr: Document ida tree sections
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 03:13:08PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> If you're convinced this is a real issue though - how about
It is a real issue. Large order allocation is fine for optimization
but shouldn't be depended upon. It does fail easily without
compaction and compaction is heavy-ass operation which will blow up
any minute performance advantage you might get from avoiding proper
radix tree implementation.
> IDA_SECTION_SIZE conditional on CONFIG_COMPACTION, so we use order 2 or
> 3 allocations if CONFIG_COMPACTION=n?
>
> Then the max size toplevel array of pointers to segments would be
> bigger, but that's only an issue when we're allocating up to near
> INT_MAX ids, so it's difficult to see how _that_ would be an issue on a
> small/embedded system... and we could even use vmalloc for that
> allocation when the size of that array is > IDA_SECTION_SIZE.
What about cyclic allocations then? This is natrually a radix tree
problem. I don't know why you're resisting radix tree so much here.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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