Re: hash table sizes

[Andrew Morton]

jbarnes@xxxxxxx (Jesse Barnes) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:07:41PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > the size of these tables dependent upon the number of dentries/inodes/etc
> > which the system is likely to support.  And that does depend upon the
> > amount of direct-addressible memory.
> > 
> > 
> > So hum.  As a starting point, what happens if we do:
> > 
> > -	vfs_caches_init(num_physpages);
> > +	vfs_caches_init(min(num_physpages, pages_in_ZONE_NORMAL));
> > 
> > ?
> 
> Something like that might be ok, but on our system, all memory is in
> ZONE_DMA...
> 

Well yes, we'd want

	vfs_caches_init(min(num_physpages, some_platform_limit()));

which on ia32 would evaluate to nr_free_buffer_pages() and on ia64 would
evaluate to the size of one of those zones.

If the machine has zillions of small zones then perhaps this will result in
an undersized hashtable.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/