Re: [PATCH -mm v2 01/11] mm: track free size between VMAs in VMArbtree

[Rik van Riel]

On 06/26/2012 09:45 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 09:05 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 06/26/2012 04:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > If you look at your patch 1, __vma_unlink has an adjust_free_gap() right
> > > next to the rb_augment_erase(), vma_adjust() has 3 adjust_free_gap()
> > > calls right next to each other.
> > >
> > > All these will do an entire path walk back to the root. I would think we
> > > could save quite a bit of updating by not having them all walk back to
> > > the root. No point in re-computing the top levels if you know the next
> > > update will change them again anyway.
> >
> > The problem is, unless we look at the augmented data at
> > rotate time, we do not know when it is safe to stop
> > iterating up the tree.
>
> argh,.. you're using adjust_vma_gap() for insertions instead of
> rb_augment_insert().
>
> I was going on the premise that you're doing updates for augmented data
> without modifying the tree structure and that doing insert/delete will
> keep the stuff up-to-date.
>
> So now I'm not sure why you do if (insert) adjust_free_gap(insert),
> since __insert_vm_struct(mm, insert) ->  __vma_link() ->  __vma_link_rb()
> already does an augment update.

I have fixed that in patch 3/11 of this series,
which I kept separate for this round of submission
to make it easier for reviewers to see what I
changed there.

However, doing an insert or delete changes the
gap size for the _next_ vma, and potentially a
change in the maximum gap size for the parent
node, so both insert and delete cause two tree
walks :(
--
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/