[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Limit the size of the IPV4 route hash.
Robin Holt <> wrote:
> I realize I have a special case which highlighted the problem. My case
> shows that not putting an upper limit or at least a drastically aggressive
> non-linear growth cap does cause issues. For the really large system,
> we were seeing a size of 512MB for the hash which was limited because
> that was the largest amount of memory available on a single node. I can
> not ever imagine this being a reasonable limit. Not with 512 cpus and
> 1024 network adapters could I envision that this level of hashing would
> actually be advantageous given all the other lock contention that will
> be seen.

Half a gig for the hashtable does seems a bit nutty.

> Can we agree that a linear calculation based on num_physpages is probably
> not the best algorithm. If so, should we make it a linear to a limit or
> a logarithmically decreasing size to a limit? How do we determine that
> limit point?

An initial default of N + M * log2(num_physpages) would probably give a
saner result.

The big risk is that someone has a too-small table for some specific
application and their machine runs more slowly than it should, but they
never notice. I wonder if it would be possible to put a little once-only
printk into the routing code: "warning route-cache chain exceeded 100
entries: consider using the rhash_entries boot option".

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.066 / U:4.272 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site