On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:50:09PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> But it isn't *really* constant time lookups? I mean you'll
> always have the O(logn) lookup. Amortised I guess that
> becomes insignificant?
For sequential scan, I get 64*O(1) + 1*O(logn), that's pretty much gain.
> Briefly: is there a reason why you couldn't use gang lookups
> instead? (Sorry I haven't been able to read and understand your
> actual readahead code).
Because they have different semantics, one cannot replace the another.
> Profile numbers would be great for the cached / non-cached cases.
Ok, I'll do it, but at some time later. Currently I have several tasks that
need immediate handling, and that will take about a week. See you then :)
Regards,
Wu
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
