[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141114131202.GB21209@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:12:02 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH vfs 1/2] lib: implement ptrset
Hello, Andrew.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 02:40:41PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> In that case tjpointer_add() would need to do a kmalloc() for each inode
> which is added to the bdev/cdev, just as ptrset_add() is doing.
>
> That might require a nasty preload thing. But really, for just two
> known callers it would be better to require the caller to create the
> storage.
>
>
> struct tjpointer *new_tpj;
>
> new_tpj = kmalloc(...);
> lock();
> tjpointer_add(&my_tjp_list, new_tjp, my_pointer);
> unlock();
>
> Basically what I'm saying is nuke the rbtree and use lists.
Hah? Then, each removal would be O(N) where N is the number of total
block devices and there are cases where massive number of block
devices exist and many are added / removed back-to-back. I don't
think making those operations O(N^2) is a good idea.
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