Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.1.xxx makes Electric Fence 22x slower

David S. Miller (davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com)
Fri, 4 Sep 1998 04:24:53 -0700


From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:16:07 +0100 (BST)

> No way, AVL is not going back into the kernel for vmas, ever.

And pray Dave why not ?

Have you benchmarked the results in detail for all three solutions ?

To expand slightly on my other posting (which you should see soon):

1) If it has balancing overhead like AVL it is not going in, this
is why Linus and I removed AVL in the first place. Lower latency
than AVL in the common case is a must.

2) As shown by the EFence case, we have to make it scale too.

Fuzzy hash is the only method which has been shown to possess both
qualities, work towards a solution using that or stay with the current
scheme. This is what I know Linus's decision making process is going
to work like here.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html