On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 09:46:52AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > but with the radix tree (please correct me if I'm wrong) the height will
> > increase eventually, no matter what (so it won't be an effective O(1)
> > like the hashtable provides in real life, not the worst case, the common
> > case). With the hashtable the height won't increase instead.
>
> No.
>
> The radix tree is basically O(1), because the maximum depth of a 7-bit
> radix tree is just 5. The index is only a 32-bit number.
then it will break on archs with more ram than 1<<(32+PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT).
Also there must be some significant memory overhead that can be
triggered with a certain layout of pages, in some configuration it
should take much more ram than the hashtable if I understood well how it
works.
Also its O(1) may be slower than the O(N) of the hashtable in the 99% of
the cases.
>
> We could, in fact, make all page caches use a fixed-depth tree, which is
> clearly O(1). But the radix tree is slightly faster and tends to use less
> memory under common loads, so..
>
> Remember: you must NOT ignore the constant part of a "O(x)" equation.
> Hashes tend to be effectively O(1) under most loads, but they have cache
> costs, and they have scalability costs that a radix tree doesn't have.
the scalability cost I obviously agree :) (however on some workload with
all tasks on the same inode, the scalability cost remains the same).
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:36 EST