[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vc4jbJqM0=Yy-1SY6E2WhzHOAAcrn1+KE-jT7MWPtWPpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 22:19:08 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, cpandya@...eaurora.org,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] of: cache phandle nodes to reduce cost of of_find_node_by_phandle()
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
> On 02/28/18 11:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:04 PM, <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>> The question is why O(1) is so important? O(log(n)) wouldn't work?
>
> O(1) is not critical. It was just a nice side result.
>
>
>> Using radix_tree() I suppose allows to dynamically extend or shrink
>> the cache which would work with DT overlays.
>
> The memory usage of the phandle cache in this patch is fairly small.
> The memory overhead of a radix_tree() would not be justified.
OTOH the advantage I mentioned isn't a good argument?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists