Re: [PATCH 1/3] Range tree implementation

[John Stultz]

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?

thanks
-john

--
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/