Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758213Ab3HMXWR (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:22:17 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54]:63162 "EHLO mail-qa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753052Ab3HMXWQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:22:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:22:11 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Kent Overstreet Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell , Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: [PATCH] idr: Document ida tree sections Message-ID: <20130813232211.GI28996@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1375896905-6074-1-git-send-email-kmo@daterainc.com> <1375896905-6074-4-git-send-email-kmo@daterainc.com> <20130807202201.GA28039@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130807205117.GC11612@kmo-pixel> <20130809145756.GL20515@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130813221308.GA11980@kmo-pixel> <20130813221928.GE28996@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130813222759.GA12069@kmo-pixel> <20130813224428.GG28996@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130813225927.GA2000@kmo-pixel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130813225927.GA2000@kmo-pixel> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1366 Lines: 33 Hello, On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 03:59:27PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Well, it's not necessarily about requiring it but more about surviving > > it with some grace when things don't go as expected, which is an > > important characteristic for common library stuff. > > The patch I posted should solve the high order allocations stuff, and > sparseness from cyclic allocations was already solved. I don't know. Yeah, using vmalloc would be able to work around the issue for most cases, I suppose. It's iffy to consume vmalloc space from ida, which functionally is such a basic algorithmic construct. It probably won't worsen things noticeably but vmalloc area can be a very precious resource on 32bit configs. > Whatever caching optimizations you do with a radix tree version I could > apply to this bitmap tree version, and my bitmap tree code is simpler > and _considerably_ faster than the existing code. But the difference won't really matter. Cached performance would be the same and that's likely to cover most cases, right? It's not like radix tree is orders of magnitude slower. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/