From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: "Jose R. Santos" <jrsantos@austin.ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, slpratt@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Making i/dhash_entries cmdline work as it use to.
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:33:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4348.1089722020@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040713025643.GA7498@austin.ibm.com>
> Actualy, it doesnt look like we need MAX_SYS_HASH_TABLE_ORDER at all so
> I'm resending the patch which now limits the max size of a hash table to
> 1/16 total memory pages. This would keep people from doing dangerous
> things when using the hash_entries.
That's an enormous limit. Consider the fact that you will have a multiplicity
of such hash tables, each potentially eating 1/16th of your total memory
(remember, the bootmem allocator's only real limit is how big a chunk of
memory it can allocate in one go).
Do you have numbers to show that committing an eighth of your memory (8GB if
you have 64GB - two hash tables at 4GB apiece) to hash tables is almost
certainly not worth it.
For instance, the dcache:
(*) Assuming 64GB of memory, of which 1/16th allocated to the dcache
hash table and 1/16th allocated to the inode hash table.
(*) dcache hash buckets are 16 bytes apiece on PPC64.
(*) 4GB hash table gives you 256 Meg hash buckets.
(gdb) p ((4ULL<<30)/16) / 1024 / 1024
$1 = 256
(*) The dentry struct on PPC64 is approx 256 bytes in size.
(*) The remaining 56GB could provide 224 Meg dentries if allocated to
nothing else.
(gdb) p (56ULL<<30) / 256 / 1024 / 1024
$2 = 224
(*) So you'd end up with more buckets in the hash table than you could
possibly allocate dentry structures.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-13 12:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-12 17:56 Jose R. Santos
2004-07-13 2:37 ` Jose R. Santos
2004-07-13 2:56 ` Jose R. Santos
2004-07-13 6:25 ` Dave Hansen
2004-07-13 12:59 ` Jose R. Santos
2004-07-13 12:33 ` David Howells [this message]
2004-07-13 12:54 ` Jose R. Santos
2004-07-13 10:29 ` David Howells
2004-07-13 13:17 ` Jose R. Santos
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4348.1089722020@redhat.com \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=jrsantos@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=slpratt@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®