Re: [PATCH 1/3] Range tree implementation

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 12:25 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 04/24/2012 12:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 10:49 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >> This makes it
> >> very difficult to provide generic list_head like behavior, as
> >> the parent structures would need to be duplicated and removed,
> >> and that has lots of memory ownership issues.
> > You can in fact modify the rb-tree to have O(1) iteration by using the
> > empty leaf pointers to keep pointers to next/prev nodes.
> >
> > Its a bit of a bother since you'd need to wrap ->rb_left and ->rb_right
> > in functions.. but now that we have coccinelle that shouldn't actually
> > be too hard.
> >
> Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following you.
> 
> My point above was that a generic range-tree implementation that manages 
> the splitting and coalescing of ranges internally is difficult, due to 
> memory ownership issues.  This makes it hard to have a generic list_head 
> style structure that you can use in your own structures. Thus in a way 
> similar to how the rb_tree leaves the insert and search implementation 
> to the suers,  there is a range_tree_node structure, and the splitting 
> and coalescing logic is left to the range-tree user.
> 
> Does your suggestion address the ownership issue differently?  Or is it 
> just a general optimization improvement?

Oh, I thought you also wanted a list_head to aid in the traversal
required to find adjacent ranges etc.. 

Brain completely failed to grasp what you were trying to say, sorry for
the noise. 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/