Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: convert elevator to generic rb tree code

[Kent Overstreet]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 02:24:58PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > So in practice there's no extra stack usage. Whether this is an
> > optimization we want to depend I'm not going to say; I suspect it's
> > pretty safe w.r.t. the optimizer but it's definitely sketchy and if at
> > some point someone came along and switched it to the uninline version
> > we'd have problems.
> 
> I don't think we can depend on that.  Note that compiler may as well
> decide not to inline an inline function (e.g. if it sees many calling
> instances).  Depending on such behavior is way too fragile.

Bah, I forgot about the compiler uninlining stuff. There's
__always_inline, but... yeah, I agree, too dangerous.

> > So we might want to leave this one open coded. Which would make me sad,
> > but I can't think of a sane way of implementing generic rb_search() that
> > doesn't require passing it a type t to compare against.
> 
> I don't know either.  Open coding isn't the end of the world but I
> suspect a lot of data structures which go on rbtree wouldn't be stack
> friendly, so having common helper which can't handle that might not be
> too helpful.

There's > 100 users in the kernel, I have no clue what the average size
of the containing struct is.

I think I'm gonna split rb_search() out into its own patch, as
rb_insert() fortunately doesn't have this problem.

I'm starting to think the sanest solution is a macro (not quite my
original RB_SEARCH() macro, though).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/