Re: [PATCH 0/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc support

[Seth Jennings]

On 09/01/2011 11:54 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 11:33 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> xcfmalloc is also 0(1) in that the number of freelists
>> at that have to be checked is constant and not increasing
>> with the number of allocations.  The constant hidden
>> in the O(1) for finding a suitable block is NUM_FREELISTS.
> 
> The algorithm is technically O(n^2) since there are
> XCF_MAX_BLOCKS_PER_ALLOC searches through XCF_NUM_FREELISTS.  There's
> also the reserved pages refill loop, which is linear too.
> 

I was seeing n as the number of allocations.  Since 
XCF_MAX_BLOCKS_PER_ALLOC and XCF_NUM_FREELISTS are constant (i.e.
not increasing with the number of allocations) wouldn't it be
O(1)?

I see it like this:

for (i=0; i<2; i++) {
	do_something();
}

vs.

do_something();
do_something();

Is one O(n) and the other O(1)?  They do the same thing because the
loop iterates a constant number of times.

For it to be O(n) it would have to be:

for (i=0; i<n; i++) {
	do_something();
}

Right?

> xcfmalloc's big compromise is that it doesn't do any searching or
> fitting.  It might needlessly split larger blocks when two small ones
> would have worked, for instance.

Splitting a larger block is the last option.  I might not
be understanding you correctly, but find_remove_block() does try to
find the optimal block to use, which is "searching and fitting" in my
mind.

> 
> -- Dave
> 

--
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/