On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:40:21 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 10:36 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:27:20 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 09:49 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The only advantage of the concurrent radix tree over this model is that > > > > it can potentially do multiple modification operations at the same time. > > > > > > Yup, we do not need that for the irq revmap... concurrent lookup is all we need. > > > > > > > Shouldn't we care about concurrent insertion and deletion in the tree? I agree > > that concern might be a bit artificial but in theory that can happen. > > Yes, we just need to protect it with a big hammer, like a spinlock, it's > not a performance critical code path. Agreed. Will look into this in the next few days. Thanks, Sebastien. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
