[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: x86: 4kstacks default

    > These are real customer workloads; java based "many things going on" at a time
    > showed several thousands of threads fin the system (a dozen or two per request, multiplied
    > by the number of outstanding connections) for *real customers*.

    Several thousands or 50k? Several thousands sounds large, but not entirely unreasonable,
    but it is far from 50k.

    > That you don't take that serious, fair, you can take serious whatever you want.

    No I don't take 50k threads on 32bit serious. And I hope you do not

    Why I don't take it serious: on 32bit 50k threads will lead
    to lowmem exhaustion if the threads are actually doing something
    (like keeping select pages around or similar and having some thread
    local data). You'll easily be at 16-32K/thread and that is already
    far beyond the lowmem available on any 3:1 split 32bit kernel, likely
    even beyond 2:2. Even with 3:1 it could be tight.

    So you can say about customer workloads what you want, but you'll
    have a hard time convincing me they really run 50k threads
    doing something on 32bit.

    Now if we take the real realistic overhead of a thread into
    account 4k or more less don't really matter all that much
    and the decreased safety from the 4k stack starts to look
    like a very bad bargain.

    >> attacked (2) in earlier thread; in particular in
    > yes you did attack.
    > But lets please use more friendly conversation here than words like
    > "attack". This is not a war, and we really shouldn't be hostile in this forum, neither
    > in words nor in intention.

    Ok what word would you prefer?

    There is no war involved right, just a technical argument. I previously
    always assumed that "attacking" was a standard term in discussions, but
    if you don't like I can switch to another one.

    Regarding war like terminology: I used to think that people who commonly
    talk about "nuking code" went a little too far, but at some point
    I adapted to them I think. Perhaps it comes from that.

    > What you didn't atta^Waddress

    Fine, I will call it address from now.

    > was the observation that fragmentation is fundamentally unsolvable.

    Where was that observation?

    > Yes 2.4 sucked a lot more than 2.6 does. But even 2.6 will (and does) have fragmentation issues.
    > We don't have effective physical address based reclaim yet for higher order allocs.

    I don't see any evidence that there are serious order 1 fragmentation
    issues on 2.6. If you have any please post it.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-20 22:05    [W:0.024 / U:6.860 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site