Re: [lockup] Re: objrmap-core-1 (rmap removal for file mappings to avoid 4:4 in <=16G machines)

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:01:15AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:56:50PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > We've lot of room for improvements.
> > 
> > Rajesh has a smart idea on how to fix the complexity issue (for both
> > truncate and vm) and it involes a new non trivial data structure.
> >
> > I trust he will make it, but if there will be any trouble with his
> > approch for safety I'm currently planning on a simpler fallback solution
> > that I can manage without having to design a new tree data structure.
> > 
> > Sharing his "tree and sorting" idea, the fallback I propose is to simply
> > index the vmas in a rbtree too.
> 
> That simply results in looking up less VMAs for low file
> indexes, but still needing to check all of them for high
> file indexes.
> 
> You really want to sort on both the start and end offset
> of the VMA, as can be done with a kd-tree or kdb-tree.

yes. But the only single reason for me to even consider using the rbtree
was to avoid having to introduce another data structure and to feel very
safe in terms of risks of memory corruption in the short term ;). The
rbtree is extremely well exercised, that's the only reason I suggested
it. Rajesh is currently working on another data strucure that is
efficient at finding a "range" (not sure if it is what you're
suggesting, he called it a prio_tree, mix between hashes and raidx
trees), that's optimal, though in practice the rbtree would work too
(peraphs one could still work an exploit ;) but the the real life apps
would be definitely covered by the rbtree too (since all vma are of the
same size and they're all naturally aligned).