Hi Rasmus, On 12/03/2019 17:33, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > I noticed that the O(n log n) behaviour of free_lpi_range could easily > be made O(n) (patch 4), though I don't suppose n is ever large enough > to actually matter. While there, I also stumbled on two other > micro-optimizations (2 and 3). n is usually in the range 1 .. nr_cpus, so pretty small, even on the biggest machines we have around (256 threads). And actually, nobody ever frees LPIs, because hey, why would you? > Then while writing the commit log for the last patch, I noticed that > the cmp callback I was removing was actually buggy, so I went back and > added a patch in front suitable for -stable. I'll leave it to others > to decide if it's important enough for that. Thanks for that. I'll have a look at the whole thing anyway (I've just glanced over it so far). > Please note that this is only compile-tested. Right, this needs some actual testing then. /me needs to build a guest that shakes the allocator a bit. Cheers, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
