Re: [PATCH v3] drivers/base/memory.c: cache blocks in radix tree to accelerate lookup

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 10:19:34AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 09-01-20 09:56:23, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 09:49:55AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 07-01-20 22:48:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > [Cc Andrew]
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue 17-12-19 13:32:38, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > > > > Searching for a particular memory block by id is slow because each block
> > > > > device is kept in an unsorted linked list on the subsystem bus.
> > > > 
> > > > Noting that this is O(N^2) would be useful.
> > > > 
> > > > > Lookup is much faster if we cache the blocks in a radix tree.
> > > > 
> > > > While this is really easy and straightforward, is there any reason why
> > > > subsys_find_device_by_id has to use such a slow lookup? I suspect nobody
> > > > simply needed a more optimized data structure for that purpose yet.
> > > > Would it be too hard to use radix tree for all lookups rather than
> > > > adding a shadow copy for memblocks?
> > > 
> > > Greg, Rafael, this seems to be your domain. Do you have any opinion on
> > > this?
> > 
> > No one has cared about the speed of that call as it has never been on
> > any "fast path" that I know of.  And it should just be O(N), isn't it
> > just walking the list of devices in order?
> 
> Which means that if you have to call it N times then it is O(N^2) and
> that is the case here because you are adding N memblocks. See
> memory_dev_init
>   for each memblock
>     add_memory_block
>       init_memory_block
>         find_memory_block_by_id # checks all existing devices
>         register_memory
> 	  device_register # add new device
>   
> In this particular case find_memory_block_by_id is called mostly to make
> sure we are no re-registering something multiple times which shouldn't
> happen so it sucks to spend a lot of time on that. We might think of
> removing that for boot time but who knows what kind of surprises we
> might see from crazy HW setups.

Ok, so this is a self-inflicted issue, not a driver core issue :)

> > If the "memory subsystem" wants a faster lookup for their objects,
> > there's nothing stopping you from using your own data structure for the
> > pointers to the objects if you want.  Just be careful about the lifetime
> > rules.
> 
> The main question is whether replacing the linked list with a radix tree
> in the generic code is something more meaningful.

I strongly doubt it, it looks like you all are doing something very
specific to your subsystem that would need this type of speed/lookup.  I
suggest doing it on your own for now.

thanks,

greg k-h