On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 07:25:09PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:25:43 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The tree is a critical part of the patch, but it is also the easiest to
> rip out and replace. Basically the code stores a range by inserting
> an object at an index corresponding to the end of the range.
>
> Then it does searches by looking forward from the start of the range.
> More or less any tree that can search and return the first key >=
> than the requested key will work.
>
> So, I'd be happy to rip out the tree and replace with something else.
> Going completely lockless will be tricky, its something that will deep
> thought once the rest of the interface is sane.
Just having the other tree and managing it is what makes me a little
less positive of this approach, especially using it to store pagecache
state when we already have the pagecache tree.
Having another tree to store block state I think is a good idea as I
said in the fsblock thread with Dave, but I haven't clicked as to why
it is a big advantage to use it to manage pagecache state. (and I can
see some possible disadvantages in locking and tree manipulation overhead).
-
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]
