[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a09bba26-8461-653d-6b43-2df897a238f0@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 08:58:25 -0400
From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, mhocko@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [v4 1/1] mm: Adaptive hash table scaling
Hi Andi,
Thank you for looking at this. I mentioned earlier, I would not want to
impose a cap. However, if you think that for example dcache needs a cap,
there is already a mechanism for that via high_limit argument, so the
client can be changed to provide that cap. However, this particular
patch addresses scaling problem for everyone by making it scale with
memory at a slower pace.
Thank you,
Pasha
On 05/20/2017 10:07 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com> writes:
>
>> Allow hash tables to scale with memory but at slower pace, when HASH_ADAPT
>> is provided every time memory quadruples the sizes of hash tables will only
>> double instead of quadrupling as well. This algorithm starts working only
>> when memory size reaches a certain point, currently set to 64G.
>>
>> This is example of dentry hash table size, before and after four various
>> memory configurations:
>
> IMHO the scale is still too aggressive. I find it very unlikely
> that a 1TB machine really needs 256MB of hash table because
> number of used files are unlikely to directly scale with memory.
>
> Perhaps should just cap it at some large size, e.g. 32M
>
> -Andi
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists