linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] of: cache phandle nodes to reduce cost of of_find_node_by

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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