![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:16:22 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: > Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> writes: > > > > it is you who keeps putting up the 50k argument. > > See the links I posted and quote in an earlier message up the thread > if you don't remember what you wrote yourself. > > I originally only hold up the fragmentation argument (or rather only > argued against it), until I was corrected by both Ingo and you in the > earlier thread and you both insisted that 50k threads were the real > reason'd'etre for 4k stacks. > > You're saying that was wrong and the fragmentation issue was really > the real reason for 4k stacks? If both you and Ingo can agree on that > I would be happy to forget the 50k threads :) I already corrected you misquoting/misunderstanding me; should I do this again? > > > What I'm talking about is in the 10k to 20k range; and that is > > actual workloads by real customers. > > On a 32bit kernel? > > My estimate is that you need around 32k for a functional blocked > thread in a network server (8k + 2*4k for poll with large fd table > and wait queues + some pinned dentries and inodes + misc other > stuff). With 20k you're 625MB into your lowmem which leaves about > 200MB left on a 3:1 system with 16GB (and ~128MB mem_map). That > might work for some time, but I expect it will fall over at some > point because there is just too much pinned lowmem and not enough > left for other stuff (like networking buffers etc.) > > 10k sounds more doable. But again do 4k more or less make > a big difference with the other thread overhead? I don't think so. no but the other ones are order 0.. -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-04-21 07:57 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||