| 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. | |