[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51C95B3A.10809@numascale-asia.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:56:26 +0800
From: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>
To: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>
Subject: 13GB dcache+inode cache hash tables
As memory capacity increases, we see the dentry and inode cache hash
tables grow to wild sizes [1], eg 13GB is consumed on a 4.5TB system.
Perhaps a better approach adds a linear component to an exponent to give
tuned scaling, given that spatial locality is an advantage in hash table
and careful use of resources.
The same approach would fit to other hash tables (mount-cache, TCP
established, TCP bind, UDP, UDP-Lite, Dquot-cache) with different
coefficients, so perhaps we could generalise.
If so what are reasonable reference points and assumptions?
Thanks,
Daniel
--- [1]
1GB:
Dentry cache hash table entries: 131072 (order: 7, 524288 bytes)
Inode-cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
8GB:
Dentry cache hash table entries: 1048576 (order: 11, 8388608 bytes)
Inode-cache hash table entries: 524288 (order: 10, 4194304 bytes)
1TB:
Dentry cache hash table entries: 134217728 (order: 18, 1073741824 bytes)
Inode-cache hash table entries: 67108864 (order: 17, 536870912 bytes)
4.5TB
Dentry cache hash table entries: 1073741824 (order: 21, 8589934592 bytes)
Inode-cache hash table entries: 536870912 (order: 20, 4294967296 bytes)
--
Daniel J Blueman
Principal Software Engineer, Numascale Asia
--
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