Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:51:49 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Examining the VM splay tree effectiveness Message-ID: <i82inm$fr4$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <4CA4BCD2.4070303@freebsd.org> References: <4CA4BCD2.4070303@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/30/10 18:37, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Both the vmmap and page table make use of splay trees to manage the > entries and to speed up lookups compared to long to traverse linked > lists or more memory expensive hash tables. Some structures though > do have an additional linked list to simplify ordered traversals. The property of splay tree requiring *writes* for nearly every read really is a thorn in the eye for SMP. It seems to me that even if the immediate benefits from converting to something else are not directly observable, it will still be worth doing it. It's a shame that RCU is still a patent minefield :/ http://mirror.leaseweb.com/kernel/people/npiggin/patches/lockless/2.6.16-rc5/radix-intro.pdf Slightly off-topic: a scare-mongering topic on Slashdot: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/09/30/1528229/Linux-May-Need-a-Rewrite-Beyond-48-Cores
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?i82inm$fr4$1>