lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: hash table sizes
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:24:39PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> jbarnes@sgi.com (Jesse Barnes) wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:07:41PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > the size of these tables dependent upon the number of dentries/inodes/etc
> > > which the system is likely to support. And that does depend upon the
> > > amount of direct-addressible memory.
> > >
> > >
> > > So hum. As a starting point, what happens if we do:
> > >
> > > - vfs_caches_init(num_physpages);
> > > + vfs_caches_init(min(num_physpages, pages_in_ZONE_NORMAL));
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > Something like that might be ok, but on our system, all memory is in
> > ZONE_DMA...
> >
>
> Well yes, we'd want
>
> vfs_caches_init(min(num_physpages, some_platform_limit()));
>
> which on ia32 would evaluate to nr_free_buffer_pages() and on ia64 would
> evaluate to the size of one of those zones.

I actually just added this to the tree I'm working on:

+ vfs_caches_init(min(1000, num_physpages-16000));

Caches are too expensive on the low end of the scale as well, when the
kernel is taking up most of RAM.

--
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.129 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site