Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] of: cache phandle nodes to reduce cost of of_find_node_by_phandle()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/28/18 11:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:04 PM,  <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> The question is why O(1) is so important? O(log(n)) wouldn't work?
>
> O(1) is not critical.  It was just a nice side result.
>
>
>> Using radix_tree() I suppose allows to dynamically extend or shrink
>> the cache which would work with DT overlays.
>
> The memory usage of the phandle cache in this patch is fairly small.
> The memory overhead of a radix_tree() would not be justified.

OTOH the advantage I mentioned isn't a good argument?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux