[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CB9BCF3@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:31:23 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Santosh Shilimkar' <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"ssantosh@...nel.org" <ssantosh@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 05/15] RDS: increase size of hash-table to 8K
From: Santosh Shilimkar
> Sent: 20 September 2015 00:05
> Even with per bucket locking scheme, in a massive parallel
> system with active rds sockets which could be in excess of multiple
> of 10K, rds_bin_lookup() workload is siginificant because of smaller
> hashtable size.
>
> With some tests, it was found that we get modest but still nice
> reduction in rds_bind_lookup with bigger bucket.
>
> Hashtable Baseline(1k) Delta
> 2048: 8.28% -2.45%
> 4096: 8.28% -4.60%
> 8192: 8.28% -6.46%
> 16384: 8.28% -6.75%
>
> Based on the data, we set 8K as the bind hash-table size.
Can't you use of on the dynamically sizing hash tables?
8k hash table entries is OTT for a lot of systems.
David
--
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