Re: [PATCH] shrink hash sizes on small machines, take 2

[Gerald Schaefer]

On Sat, Apr 10, 2004, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Base hash sizes on available memory rather than total memory. An
> additional 50% above current used memory is considered reserved for
> the purposes of hash sizing to compensate for the hashes themselves
> and the remainder of kernel and userspace initialization.
> 
> Index: tiny/fs/dcache.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tiny.orig/fs/dcache.c	2004-03-25 13:36:09.000000000 -0600
> +++ tiny/fs/dcache.c	2004-04-10 18:14:42.000000000 -0500
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>  #include <asm/uaccess.h>
>  #include <linux/security.h>
>  #include <linux/seqlock.h>
> +#include <linux/swap.h>
>  
>  #define DCACHE_PARANOIA 1
>  /* #define DCACHE_DEBUG 1 */
> @@ -1619,13 +1620,21 @@
> 
>  void __init vfs_caches_init(unsigned long mempages)
>  {
> -	names_cachep = kmem_cache_create("names_cache", 
> -			PATH_MAX, 0, 
> +	unsigned long reserve;
> +
> +	/* Base hash sizes on available memory, with a reserve equal to
> +           150% of current kernel size */
> +
> +	reserve = (mempages - nr_free_pages()) * 3/2;
> +	mempages -= reserve;

This calculation doesn't sound right. The value of mempages is set to
num_physpages from the calling function start_kernel(), which also
includes pages from a potential "mem=" kernel parameter (which we use
for reserving memory to load DCSS segments on z/VM).

Whenever the amount of reserved pages goes above some limit (for whatever
reason, not only with "mem="), this calculation results in a negative value
for mempages, respectively a very large value due to "unsigned long".

I am not on the mailing list, so please put me on cc if you answer.

--
Gerald
-
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/