[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190612145213.GK3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:52:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 4/6] x86/alternative: Batch of patch operations
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:57:29AM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> When a static key has more than one entry, these steps are called once for
> each entry. The number of IPIs then is linear with regard to the number 'n' of
> entries of a key: O(n*3), which is O(n).
> Doing the update in this way, the number of IPI becomes O(3) with regard
> to the number of keys, which is O(1).
That's not quite true, what you're doing is n/X, which, in the end, is
still O(n).
It just so happens your X is 128, and so any n smaller than that ends up
being 1.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists