From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx142.postini.com [74.125.245.142]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2870F6B0071 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 06:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dhcp-089-099-019-018.chello.nl ([89.99.19.18] helo=dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1SmMa1-0006jz-DH for linux-mm@kvack.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:13:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm v2 01/11] mm: track free size between VMAs in VMA rbtree From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: References: <1340315835-28571-1-git-send-email-riel@surriel.com> <1340315835-28571-2-git-send-email-riel@surriel.com> <20120629234638.GA27797@google.com> <4FF3662A.9070700@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:12:53 +0200 Message-ID: <1341396773.2507.79.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michel Lespinasse Cc: Rik van Riel , Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, aarcange@redhat.com, minchan@gmail.com, kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com, andi@firstfloor.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:16 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On 06/29/2012 07:46 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > >> Basically, I think lib/rbtree.c should provide augmented rbtree support > >> in the form of (versions of) rb_insert_color() and rb_erase() being able > >> to > >> callback to adjust the augmented node information around tree rotations, > >> instead of using (conservative, overkill) loops to adjust the augmented > >> node information after the fact > > > > That is what I originally worked on. > > > > I threw out that code after people told me (at LSF/MM) in > > no uncertain terms that I should use the augmented rbtree > > code :) > > Well, bummer. Could you summarize what their argument was ? In other > words, what are the constraints besides not adding overhead to the > scheduler rbtree use case and keeping the code size reasonable ? Mostly those.. but if you can do the thing with the __always_inline and __flatten stuff from Daniel I'm ok with GCC generating more code, as long we don't don't have to replicate the RB tree logic in C. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org