Re: 2.4.23aa2 (bugfixes and important VM improvements for the high end)

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 03:29:47AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:39:24 +0100
> Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > you're wrong about s/vm_next/rb_next()/, walking the tree like in
> > get_unmapped_area would require recurisve algos w/o vm_next, or
> > significant heap allocations. that's the only thing vm_next is needed
> > for (i.e. to walk the tree in order efficiently). only if we drop all
> > tree walks than we can nuke vm_next.
> 
> Not sure what you mean here. rb_next() is not recursive.

if you don't allocate the memory with recursion-like algos, you'll trow
too much cpu in a loop like this with rb_next. so it worth to keep
vm_next for performance reasons or for memory allocation reasons.

	for (vma = find_vma(mm, addr); ; vma = vma->vm_next) {
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/