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:0.027 / U:62.604 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site