On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 18:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Well ... It's my opinion (and purely unsubstantiated, I suppose) that
> > it's more efficient on 32 bit platforms to do bit operations on 32 bit
> > quantities, which is why I changed the radix tree map shift to 5 for
> > that case.
> >
> > It also makes much cleaner code than having to open code checks on
> > variable sized bitmaps.
> It does make the tree higher and hence will incur some more cache missing
> when descending the tree.
Actually, I don't think it does: the common user is the page tree.
Obviously, I've changed nothing on 64 bits, so we only need to consider
what I've done on 32 bits. A page size is almost universally 4k on 32
bit, so we need 20 bits to store the page tree index. Regardless of
whether the index size is 5 or 6, that gives a radix tree depth of 4.
> We changed the node size a few years back. umm....
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0206.2/0141.html
Yes, but that was to reduce the index size from 7 to 6 for slab
allocation reasons. I've just reduced it to 5 on 32 bit.
> It would be a little bit sad to be unable to make such tuning adjustments
> in the future. Not a huge loss, but a loss.
Well .. OK .. If the benchmarks say I've slowed us down on 32 bits, I'll
put the variable sizing back in the tag array.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |