Re:Finger Trees: A Simple General-Purpose Data Structure (2006)
by HelloNurse on Tuesday December 27, 2016 @12:47PM
(#13264626)
An OS kernel has no business maintaining, and even less business accessing in bulk, large data structures that are performance-critical enough to worry about coherent memory access. It is also an infrastructure-deprived environment in which swapping around pointers to implement a linked list with correct locking is relatively easy to get right but allocating vectors is out of the question.
Re:Finger Trees: A Simple General-Purpose Data Structure (2006)
by dom0 on Tuesday December 27, 2016 @01:06PM
(#13264753)
> An OS kernel has no business maintaining, and even less business accessing in bulk, large data structures that are performance-critical enough to worry about coherent memory access
File systems are usually part of the kernel.
Re:Finger Trees: A Simple General-Purpose Data Structure (2006)
by scott_s on Tuesday December 27, 2016 @02:19PM
(#13265406)
File systems tend not to have large data structures. They are relatively modest data structures which manage bulk access to large blocks of data. A subtle distinction, but important in this context.
Re:Finger Trees: A Simple General-Purpose Data Structure (2006)
by IgorPartola on Tuesday December 27, 2016 @08:05PM
(#13267671)
Really? Even huge volumes with loads of tiny files? Mail and Usenet servers? Build servers? What is your definition of large and modest here?
Re:Finger Trees: A Simple General-Purpose Data Structure (2006)
by rosser on Tuesday December 27, 2016 @09:29PM
(#13267986)
The data structures under discussion here are those used to track individual files. Yes, there can be squillions of them, but as data structures, they are, in fact, rather modest.
There is a time and a place for them, but if you need speed I agree... there are better solutions