From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] lib/radix: add universal radix_tree_fill_range
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:03:53 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160830220353.GB20121@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA9_cmeHzubEwpEGELo2FLf+MBdHbN4J=-TAe-P-M+OoxHAWyw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:56:17PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > It may be protected by the mapping lock in the current code, but I would it expect it to become an RCU lookup + lock eventually. No mapping lock, just like the page cache.
> >
> > Even if we can work around it, why do we want to? What's the compelling reason to change from the current radix tree representation of order-N entries to an arbitrary range? There are no in-kernel users right now; is there a performance reason to change? We don't usually change an API in anticipation of future users appearing, particularly when the API makes it harder for the existing users to use it.
>
> I'd use a fill range api for the radix backing get_dev_pagemap() and
> potentially another use in device-dax. It centralizes the common
> routine of breaking down a range into its constituent power-of-2
> ranges.
Does your usage not work with the current sibling & canonical entry model?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-30 22:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-27 14:14 [PATCH RFC 1/4] lib/radix: add universal radix_tree_fill_range Konstantin Khlebnikov
2016-08-27 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC 2/4] lib/radix-tree: remove sibling entries Konstantin Khlebnikov
2016-08-27 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC 3/4] testing/radix-tree: replace multi-order with range operations Konstantin Khlebnikov
2016-08-27 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] testing/radix-tree: benchmark for iterator Konstantin Khlebnikov
[not found] ` <20160827180927.GA22919@linux.intel.com>
2016-08-29 15:21 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] lib/radix: add universal radix_tree_fill_range Matthew Wilcox
2016-08-29 16:14 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2016-08-29 18:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2016-08-29 18:15 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2016-08-29 18:52 ` Matthew Wilcox
2016-08-30 21:56 ` Dan Williams
2016-08-30 22:03 ` Ross Zwisler [this message]
2016-08-30 22:21 ` Dan Williams
2016-08-30 22:53 ` Ross Zwisler
2016-09-01 6:12 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2016-09-02 17:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2016-09-03 4:50 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2016-08-31 14:57 ` Matthew Wilcox
2016-08-31 16:36 ` Dan Williams
2016-09-01 6:16 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2016-08-30 22:00 ` Ross Zwisler
2016-08-30 22:39 ` Ross Zwisler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160830220353.GB20121@linux.intel.com \
--to=ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=koct9i@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mawilcox@microsoft.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox