[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALYGNiODSZPx5Hptw_MRiuCuZ+PSZ47mpTSBH2qhgi9jf=_Dmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:16:44 +0300
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.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 Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com> wrote:
>> I'm not at all against the idea of having a tree which supports ranges, except that we already have one; the interval tree. Did you investigate using the interval tree for your use case?
>
> I am continuing to investigate, but that is orthogonal to whether
> Konstantin's changes are an improvement for the radix implementation.
> Hmm, would we have ended up with two data-structures if a range-based
> radix was available?
Interval tree is a augmented rb-tree. AFAIK it doesn't support RCU lookup
without special dances with sequential counters - some branches disappears
from RCU readers during rebalance.
>
> The benefits I see is that it simplifies insertion as it no longer
> needs to explicitly manage the order of the entries, and, iiuc, let's
> the user skip the sibling-to-head conversion when it is not needed
> which simplifies lookups.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists