Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste of memory?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 11:36 pm

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:25:30 -0400 Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca> wrote:


Good enough as a short-term thing I guess.

But the memory consumption which David described is plain nuttiness and
needs to be fixed, presumably by using a more appropriate data structure
for lookups.

However unless I missed it, nobody has yet stated that they intend to
fix this?
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Sat Oct 16, 12:20 pm)
Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Sat Oct 16, 5:49 pm)
Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Sat Oct 16, 6:13 pm)
Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Sun Oct 17, 11:46 am)
Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Sun Oct 17, 11:49 am)
Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Sun Oct 17, 11:52 am)
Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste ..., Andrew Morton, (Sun Oct 17, 11:36 pm)