On 28 June 2013 09:18, <[email protected]> wrote: >> You can't make that assumption. I bet that if both pointers are in the >> _same_ cache line, the overhead of maintaining a double linked list is >> trivial. > > > No, it's not. A singly-linked SLIST only needs to modify the head of the > list and the current element. A doubly-linked LIST needs to modify both the > head as well as the old first element, which may not be in cache (and may > not be in the same TLB, either). I don't recall exactly what [S]TAILQ > touches, but the doubly-linked version still has to modify more entries that > are not contiguous.
Good point. -adrian _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
