[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <560098ED.7@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:55:25 -0700
From: santosh shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ssantosh@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] RDS: increase size of hash-table to 8K
On 9/21/2015 4:05 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:04:42 -0400
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
>
> Like others I would strongly prefer that you use a dynamically sized
> hash table.
>
> Eating 8k just because a module just happened to get loaded is really
> not appropriate.
>
> And there are many other places that use such a scheme, one example is
> the AF_NETLINK socket hash table.
OK. Thanks for AF_NETLINK pointer. I will look it up.
Regards,
Santosh
--
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