Re: [PATCH -next 0/5] rbtree: optimize frequent tree walks

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Sun, 09 Feb 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Seems that all the caller sites you've converted use a fairly small
> number of rbnodes, so the additional storage shouldn't be a big
> problem.  Are there any other sites you're eyeing?  If so, do you expect
> any of those will use a significant amount of memory for the nodes?

I also thought about converting the deadline scheduler to use these,
mainly benefiting pull_dl_task() but didn't get to it and I don't expect
the extra footprint to be prohibitive.

> And...  are these patches really worth merging?  Complexity is added,
> but what end-user benefit can we expect?

Yes they are worth merging, imo (which of course is biased :)

I don't think there is too much added complexity overall, particularly
considering that the user conversions are rather trivial. And even for
small trees (ie 100 nodes) we still benefit in a measurable way from
these optimizations.

Thanks,
Davidlohr