[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <737b5bf7-329e-c59d-7601-aea0f4ffbeab@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:58:12 -0300
From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus()
Hi Benjamin,
On 10/05/2016 02:41 PM, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> I'd suggest increasing the default limit by changing how it is calculated.
> The current number came about 13 years ago when machines had orders of
> magnitude less RAM than they do today.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Does the default also have implications other than memory usage?
For example, concurrency/performance of as much aio contexts running,
or if userspace could try to exploit some point with a larger number?
Wondering about it because it can be set based on num_possible_cpus(),
but that might be really large on high-end systems.
Regards,
--
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
IBM Linux Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists