Revision 48a7f7746875425797aea31ed2910088635c1c7a authored by Johannes Weiner on 01 December 2009, 21:17:48 UTC, committed by Linus Torvalds on 02 December 2009, 00:32:20 UTC
The possible CCR_Y2K register values are 19 or 20 and struct rtc_time's tm_year is in years since 1900. The function translating rtc_time to register values assumes tm_year to be years since first christmas, though, and we end up storing 0 or 1 in the CCR_Y2K register, which the hardware does not refuse to do. A subsequent probing of the clock fails due to the invalid value range in the register, though. [ And if it didn't, reading the clock would yield a bogus year because the function translating registers to tm_year is assuming a register value of 19 or 20. ] This fixes the conversion from years since 1900 in tm_year to the corresponding CCR_Y2K value of 19 or 20. Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jw@emlix.com> Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <p_gortmaker@yahoo.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
1 parent 0a1f127
prio_tree.txt
The prio_tree.c code indexes vmas using 3 different indexes:
* heap_index = vm_pgoff + vm_size_in_pages : end_vm_pgoff
* radix_index = vm_pgoff : start_vm_pgoff
* size_index = vm_size_in_pages
A regular radix-priority-search-tree indexes vmas using only heap_index and
radix_index. The conditions for indexing are:
* ->heap_index >= ->left->heap_index &&
->heap_index >= ->right->heap_index
* if (->heap_index == ->left->heap_index)
then ->radix_index < ->left->radix_index;
* if (->heap_index == ->right->heap_index)
then ->radix_index < ->right->radix_index;
* nodes are hashed to left or right subtree using radix_index
similar to a pure binary radix tree.
A regular radix-priority-search-tree helps to store and query
intervals (vmas). However, a regular radix-priority-search-tree is only
suitable for storing vmas with different radix indices (vm_pgoff).
Therefore, the prio_tree.c extends the regular radix-priority-search-tree
to handle many vmas with the same vm_pgoff. Such vmas are handled in
2 different ways: 1) All vmas with the same radix _and_ heap indices are
linked using vm_set.list, 2) if there are many vmas with the same radix
index, but different heap indices and if the regular radix-priority-search
tree cannot index them all, we build an overflow-sub-tree that indexes such
vmas using heap and size indices instead of heap and radix indices. For
example, in the figure below some vmas with vm_pgoff = 0 (zero) are
indexed by regular radix-priority-search-tree whereas others are pushed
into an overflow-subtree. Note that all vmas in an overflow-sub-tree have
the same vm_pgoff (radix_index) and if necessary we build different
overflow-sub-trees to handle each possible radix_index. For example,
in figure we have 3 overflow-sub-trees corresponding to radix indices
0, 2, and 4.
In the final tree the first few (prio_tree_root->index_bits) levels
are indexed using heap and radix indices whereas the overflow-sub-trees below
those levels (i.e. levels prio_tree_root->index_bits + 1 and higher) are
indexed using heap and size indices. In overflow-sub-trees the size_index
is used for hashing the nodes to appropriate places.
Now, an example prio_tree:
vmas are represented [radix_index, size_index, heap_index]
i.e., [start_vm_pgoff, vm_size_in_pages, end_vm_pgoff]
level prio_tree_root->index_bits = 3
-----
_
0 [0,7,7] |
/ \ |
------------------ ------------ | Regular
/ \ | radix priority
1 [1,6,7] [4,3,7] | search tree
/ \ / \ |
------- ----- ------ ----- | heap-and-radix
/ \ / \ | indexed
2 [0,6,6] [2,5,7] [5,2,7] [6,1,7] |
/ \ / \ / \ / \ |
3 [0,5,5] [1,5,6] [2,4,6] [3,4,7] [4,2,6] [5,1,6] [6,0,6] [7,0,7] |
/ / / _
/ / / _
4 [0,4,4] [2,3,5] [4,1,5] |
/ / / |
5 [0,3,3] [2,2,4] [4,0,4] | Overflow-sub-trees
/ / |
6 [0,2,2] [2,1,3] | heap-and-size
/ / | indexed
7 [0,1,1] [2,0,2] |
/ |
8 [0,0,0] |
_
Note that we use prio_tree_root->index_bits to optimize the height
of the heap-and-radix indexed tree. Since prio_tree_root->index_bits is
set according to the maximum end_vm_pgoff mapped, we are sure that all
bits (in vm_pgoff) above prio_tree_root->index_bits are 0 (zero). Therefore,
we only use the first prio_tree_root->index_bits as radix_index.
Whenever index_bits is increased in prio_tree_expand, we shuffle the tree
to make sure that the first prio_tree_root->index_bits levels of the tree
is indexed properly using heap and radix indices.
We do not optimize the height of overflow-sub-trees using index_bits.
The reason is: there can be many such overflow-sub-trees and all of
them have to be suffled whenever the index_bits increases. This may involve
walking the whole prio_tree in prio_tree_insert->prio_tree_expand code
path which is not desirable. Hence, we do not optimize the height of the
heap-and-size indexed overflow-sub-trees using prio_tree->index_bits.
Instead the overflow sub-trees are indexed using full BITS_PER_LONG bits
of size_index. This may lead to skewed sub-trees because most of the
higher significant bits of the size_index are likely to be 0 (zero). In
the example above, all 3 overflow-sub-trees are skewed. This may marginally
affect the performance. However, processes rarely map many vmas with the
same start_vm_pgoff but different end_vm_pgoffs. Therefore, we normally
do not require overflow-sub-trees to index all vmas.
From the above discussion it is clear that the maximum height of
a prio_tree can be prio_tree_root->index_bits + BITS_PER_LONG.
However, in most of the common cases we do not need overflow-sub-trees,
so the tree height in the common cases will be prio_tree_root->index_bits.
It is fair to mention here that the prio_tree_root->index_bits
is increased on demand, however, the index_bits is not decreased when
vmas are removed from the prio_tree. That's tricky to do. Hence, it's
left as a home work problem.
![swh spinner](/static/img/swh-spinner.gif)
Computing file changes ...