[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160830220353.GB20121@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:03:53 -0600
From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] lib/radix: add universal radix_tree_fill_range
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:56:17PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com> wrote:
> > It may be protected by the mapping lock in the current code, but I would it expect it to become an RCU lookup + lock eventually. No mapping lock, just like the page cache.
> >
> > Even if we can work around it, why do we want to? What's the compelling reason to change from the current radix tree representation of order-N entries to an arbitrary range? There are no in-kernel users right now; is there a performance reason to change? We don't usually change an API in anticipation of future users appearing, particularly when the API makes it harder for the existing users to use it.
>
> I'd use a fill range api for the radix backing get_dev_pagemap() and
> potentially another use in device-dax. It centralizes the common
> routine of breaking down a range into its constituent power-of-2
> ranges.
Does your usage not work with the current sibling & canonical entry model?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists