On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 16:13 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 16:00 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:03:26 -0400
> > Chris Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > This patch aims to demonstrate one way to replace buffer heads with a
> > > few extent trees. Buffer heads provide a few different features:
> > >
> > > 1) Mapping of logical file offset to blocks on disk
> > > 2) Recording state (dirty, locked etc)
> > > 3) Providing a mechanism to access sub-page sized blocks.
> > >
> > > This patch covers #1 and #2, I'll start on #3 a little later next
> > > week.
> > >
> > Well, almost. I decided to try out an rbtree instead of the radix,
> > which turned out to be much faster. Even though individual operations
> > are slower, the rbtree was able to do many fewer ops to accomplish the
> > same thing, especially for merging extents together. It also uses much
> > less ram.
>
> The problem with an rbtree is that you can't use it together with RCU to
> do lockless lookups. You can probably modify it to allocate nodes
> dynamically (like the radix tree does) and thus make it RCU-compatible,
> but then you risk losing the two main benefits that you list above.
I thought on this, and I came to the conclusion that the tree rotations
used to balance binary trees are incompatible with RCU. The rotation can
hide one branch. Hence I started writing a B+tree that is RCU compatible
much like the Radix tree.
Current code here:
http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/vma_lookup/btree.patch
Still needs some work, but is usable.
-
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]
