[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070519163052.GA4793@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 09:30:53 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, kernel-packagers@...r.kernel.org,
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Subject: Re: sysfs makes scaling suck Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:49:52PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:45:24PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > But also, the sysfs with over 4,000 (and higher) devices was
> > specifically checked by OSDL (actually as part of the CGL testing) some
> > of the Manoj changes (for unpinning entries etc) were needed to get it
> > to function, but as of now, I believe an enterprise scaling test works
> > reasonably well for it ... there certainly wasn't any evidence of it
> > dying horribly in the tests.
>
> i386 exhausts lowmem very quickly. SCSI is in a bit better shape than
> network devices as the multiplier is only around 4 compared to 16 for network
> devices.
And sysfs pushes nodes out of memory when we start to exhaust memory, so
there should not be a problem at all. If there is, please let the sysfs
developers know about it and we will work to fix this.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists