[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120117.122800.466698184519541715.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:28:00 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Cc: sivanich@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, jmorris@...ei.org,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jkosina@...e.cz, avi@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix panic in __d_lookup with high dentry hashtable
counts
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:25:27 +0000
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:13:52AM -0600, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
>> When the number of dentry cache hash table entries gets too high
>> (2147483648 entries), as happens by default on a 16TB system, use
>> of a signed integer in the dcache_init() initialization loop prevents
>> the dentry_hashtable from getting initialized, causing a panic in
>> __d_lookup().
>>
>> In addition, the _hash_mask returned from alloc_large_system_hash() does
>> not support more than a 32 bit hash table size.
>>
>> Changing the _hash_mask size returned from alloc_large_system_hash() to
>> support larger hash table sizes in the future, and changing loop counter
>> sizes appropriately.
>
> ... and I still would like to see somebody familiar with uses of other
> hashes to comment on the desirability of such monsters. For dcache and
> icache it's absolutely certain to be worse than useless. We are talking
> about 4Gbuckets here...
It's wrong in networking too.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists