Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:27:50 -0600 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |