On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 06:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Davide Libenzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > a) Were IDR trees evaluated and if so, why were they rejected?
> >
> > b) it's a bit disappointing that this new allocator is only usable for
> > one specific application. We have a *lot* of places in the kernel which
> > want allocators of this type. Many of them are open-coded and crappy.
> > Some use IDR trees.
> >
> > If we're going to go and add a complete new allocator, it would be
> > good to position it as a library thing if poss.
>
> Thank you for pointing me to that, Andrew. I didn't know about it (IDR
> trees).
> It does not fit AFAICS.
> Locking should be handled extarnally (the files
> struct),
Yeah, that's already a problem in IDR and I'm hoping sometime someone will
be inspired to redo it, move it to caller-provided locking.
> must be RCU friendly (proper barriers) since it's used in
> lockless code,
Haven't looked at that.
> and must have flags associated to an allocation.
Don't understand that.
> And I'm
> leaving out the O(1) part, that for something like this, is just silly not
> to have it. This is really an array.
Having to walk down a tree in fget_light() would kinda suck.
What about my b)?
-
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]
