Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:24:38 -0800 | Subject | Re: [DMESG] cpumask_t in action | From | (Jesse Barnes) |
| |
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:18:29PM -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > Dentry cache hash table entries: 33554432 (order: 14, 268435456 bytes) > > Inode-cache hash table entries: 33554432 (order: 14, 268435456 bytes) > > IP: routing cache hash table of 8388608 buckets, 131072Kbytes > > TCP: Hash tables configured (established 67108864 bind 65536) > > swapper: page allocation failure. order:17, mode:0x20 > > Does these hash tables really need to that big? 33 million dentry and > inode entry? Same thing with network, unless the machine is loaded > with several gigabit cards, these hash table seems to be exceedingly > large.
This one only has two gige cards:
tg3.c:v2.2 (August 24, 2003) PCI: Found IRQ 54 for device 0000:01:04.0 ACPI: No IRQ known for interrupt pin A of device 0000:01:04.0 - using IRQ 54 eth0: Tigon3 [partno(030-1771-000) rev 0105 PHY(5701)] (PCI:66MHz:64-bit) 10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet 08:00:69:13:e6:a7 PCI: Found IRQ 66 for device 0000:11:04.0 ACPI: No IRQ known for interrupt pin A of device 0000:11:04.0 - using IRQ 66 eth1: Tigon3 [partno(030-1771-000) rev 0105 PHY(5701)] (PCI:66MHz:64-bit) 10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet 08:00:69:13:e4:a4 PCI: Found IRQ 53 for device 0000:01:03.0 ACPI: No IRQ known for interrupt pin A of device 0000:01:03.0 - using IRQ 53
As for the dentry and inode-cache tables, yes they're probably too big, and they're also allocated on node 0 rather than being spread out.
Jesse - 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/
| |