On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:16 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 06/29/2012 07:46 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > >> Basically, I think lib/rbtree.c should provide augmented rbtree support > >> in the form of (versions of) rb_insert_color() and rb_erase() being able > >> to > >> callback to adjust the augmented node information around tree rotations, > >> instead of using (conservative, overkill) loops to adjust the augmented > >> node information after the fact > > > > That is what I originally worked on. > > > > I threw out that code after people told me (at LSF/MM) in > > no uncertain terms that I should use the augmented rbtree > > code :) > > Well, bummer. Could you summarize what their argument was ? In other > words, what are the constraints besides not adding overhead to the > scheduler rbtree use case and keeping the code size reasonable ? Mostly those.. but if you can do the thing with the __always_inline and __flatten stuff from Daniel I'm ok with GCC generating more code, as long we don't don't have to replicate the RB tree logic in C. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>