From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 16:00:07 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: how not to write a search algorithm Message-ID: <20020804230007.GJ4010@holomorphy.com> References: <3D4CE74A.A827C9BC@zip.com.au> <20020804203804.GD4010@holomorphy.com> <3D4D9802.D1F208F0@zip.com.au> <3D4DB2AF.48B07053@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D4DB2AF.48B07053@zip.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Daniel Phillips , Rik van Riel , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 04:03:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > The list walk is killing us now. I think we need: > struct pte_chain { > struct pte_chain *next; > pte_t *ptes[L1_CACHE_BYTES/4 - 4]; > }; > Still poking... Could I get a pte_t *ptes[(L1_CACHE_BYTES - sizeof(struct pte_chain *))/(sizeof(pte_t *))] ? Well, regardless, the mean pte_chain length for chains of length > 1 is around 6, and the std. dev. is around 12, and the distribution is *very* long-tailed, so this is just about guaranteed to help at the cost of some slight internal fragmentation. Cheers, Bill -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/