On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 10:27:02AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > BTW. when I see that btree code in dm-table.c, I ask - why doesn't it use > binary search? > > We only append targets at the end when constructing the device, we never > insert or remove them, so we don't need a tree. For these operations > binary search would be as good as btree and it is simpler. I originally expected dm tables to have many, many more entries than they do these days (I remember benchmarking it with 1 million entries). I used a btree to try and be nicer to the cpu cache; the idea being that each btree node could fit into a cache line. Plain binary search would have caused many more cache faults. Given how dm is used these days I wouldn't mind a switch to a binary search. - Joe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
