Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:58:38 -0500 | From | Robin Holt <> | Subject | Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on num_possible_cpus(). |
| |
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 01:36:38PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Stephen Champion <schamp@sgi.com> writes: > If we want something that tunes to the work load I expect a radix tree > would be best. If the goal after 4k cpus is 64k cpus which I heard someone > mention I think that is what you really want. A design that scales to > the workload on the system.
But if we simply scale based upon num_possible_cpus(), we get a relatively representative scaling function. Usually, customers buy machines with 1, 2, or 4GB per cpu. I would expect a waste of 256k, 512k, or even 1m to be acceptable at this size of machine.
For 2.6.27, would you accept an upper cap based on the memory size algorithm you have now and adjusted for num_possible_cpus()? Essentially the first patch I posted.
I would like to try and not be responsible for the radix tree implementation as I have other more pressing obligations. If, however, it was a condition of getting an interim solution into 2.6.27, I would be willing to discuss this with my management.
Thanks, Robin
| |