Messages in this thread | | | From | Sasha Levin <> | Date | Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:14:22 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] remove kvm's use of augmented rbtree |
| |
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> wrote: >>> The following patch fixed the problem for me: >>> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/rbtree_augmented.h b/include/linux/rbtree_augmented.h >>> index 214caa3..5cfdca6 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/rbtree_augmented.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/rbtree_augmented.h >>> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ rb_insert_augmented(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_root *root, >>> const struct rb_augment_callbacks *augment) >>> { >>> __rb_insert_augmented(node, root, augment->rotate); >>> + augment->propagate(node, NULL); >>> } >> >> This would work, but would slow down all sites which already take care >> of updating the augmented information before calling >> rb_insert_augmented, so please don't do that. >> >> The simplest fix would be to add the propagate call where your >> rb_insert_augmented() call site is; the better fix would be to do the >> update incrementally as you search down the tree for the insertion >> point; and the best fix may be to just avoid duplicating that code and >> use interval_tree.h (if your keys are longs) or >> interval_tree_generic.h to generate the proper insert / remove >> functions. > > So I had a quick look at linux-next, and my understanding is that the > rbtree-interval API in kvm always stores non-overlapping intervals. > Based on this, the use of augmented rbtrees isn't really justified; it > is just as easy to use a simple rbtree of intervals sorted by the > addresses they cover. > > This patchset was generated against the current linux-next. I only > verified that kvm still compiled; obviously this would need more > testing. On the other hand, there are currently some correctness > issues in kvm's implementatin of rbtree intervals, so I think this > simplification should be beneficial. > > Michel Lespinasse (3): > kvm: ensure non-overlapping intervals in rb_int_insert() > kvm: rb_int_search_single simplification > kvm: remove max_high field in rb_int_node structure > > tools/kvm/include/kvm/rbtree-interval.h | 13 +++-- > tools/kvm/util/rbtree-interval.c | 86 ++++--------------------------- > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-) > > Sasha, could you please check my logic and apply this to the kvm tree ?
When I've initially added the interval tree I figured we might need to allow overlapping for future arches which might need it. Since we now have extra 2 arches I guess we don't really need it. So I guess we're fine with removing it.
Pekka?
Thanks, Sasha
| |