[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YA/hHg8mH+e6cGOs@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:30:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, walken@...gle.com, mingo@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com, irogers@...gle.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] rbtree, uprobes: Use rbtree helpers
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:59:49PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Reduce rbtree boilerplate by using the new helpers.
>
> This reminds me of:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200207180305.11092-6-dave@stgolabs.net/
>
> Would a walk optimization (list+rbtree) serve here? Not sure how big
> the uprobes_trees gets.
Oh, that's patch set is horrible.. You can do a linked list with the
unused node pointers directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threaded_binary_tree
So instead of using NULL for the empty rb_{left,right} pointers, use
pointers with the LSB set to differentiate them from regular leaf
pointers.
Other than that, threaded rb-trees would be awesome. I've meant to
implement them a number of times but never had the time to do the
tree-wide clean up of the rb_tree API to enable them.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists