Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 May 2006 08:24:51 +0800 | From | Wu Fengguang <> | Subject | Re: + radixtree-look-aside-cache.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 07:27:13PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > >>Ah, I'm just having a little dig ;) (as you do with me when I break the > >>radix-tree). No, it's great to see you're picking up the readahead stuff, > >>however I guess one has to be fairly careful with the radix-tree though... > >> > > > >I had a feeling that there were too few reviews, and with this > >feeling, have been improving the code/doc/patch for easier reviews. > > > >Thank you very much for the comments, most of them are really valuable > >ones. I'll answer them one by one and try to solve the problems ASAP. > > > > OK: just make sure to cc lkml (I forgot to with this thread)...
ok.
> > > >>I wouldn't like to see you drop it all, however if Wu can come up with a > >>patchset minus radix tree changes I think it would have a better chance. > >> > > > >I feel very sorry for the collision with your patches. > >I have been worried about it for some time. > >Maybe it's time for us to address it in some constructive way? > > > > Well I think the direct data patches are fairly important, and are smallish > and standalone. Ie. they'll most likely get in before any readahead stuff, > so you'll have to look at porting patches to them. > > I can help with that if/when the time comes. However, as I've said, I would > drop them for the moment and just focus on the core readahead patchset.
Oh please keep them, I have fixed the code to work with the direct data :)
Now I have removed the radix tree look-aside cache, and cut down the new radix tree functions to three core ones: - __radix_tree_lookup_parent() - radix_tree_scan_hole_backward() - radix_tree_scan_hole() In the hope that it be easier for you to work with.
> >>Wu: if someone does report that it causes poor CPU efficiency, that won't > >>be cause for the patchset to be dropped: on the contrary it might provide > >>some good evidence that the radix-tree work is needed. And then we can > >>look at as a problem by itself. > >> > > > >You are guessing right: I've been nervous about the CPU efficiency of > >the context based method since the early stage of the patch. OMG it > >would be great if I get this advice early ;) > > > > I guess this was the point I had been trying to get at. Maybe I wasn't > explicit :\
;-)
Wu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |