No, there is no memory allocation.
> On cache-coherency issues, wouldn't it be more likely to have a cache
> hit when you are accessing one contigious (ie the array) piece of
> memory? A 4-k page will hold a lot of indexes!!
No, because when traversing an array-heap, you don't access contiguous
entries. You might get one or two more cache hits near the root of the
heap.
> To get around the fixed size thing..could have
> the array grow itself when needed (and probably never shrink again).
You could to that, but then you'd have to deal with memory allocation
failures and memory deadlocks, making add_timer rather complicated.
It's not acceptable for add_timer to fail or require kmalloc().
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/