All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: Adaptive hash table scaling
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 15:30:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170505133029.GC31461@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <429c8506-c498-0599-4258-7bac947fe29c@oracle.com>

On Thu 04-05-17 14:28:51, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> BTW, I am OK with your patch on top of this "Adaptive hash table" patch, but
> I do not know what high_limit should be from where HASH_ADAPT will kick in.
> 128M sound reasonable to you?

For simplicity I would just use it unconditionally when no high_limit is
set. What would be the problem with that? If you look at current users
(and there no new users emerging too often) then most of them just want
_some_ scaling. The original one obviously doesn't scale with large
machines. Are you OK to fold my change to your patch or you want me to
send a separate patch? AFAIK Andrew hasn't posted this patch to Linus
yet.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: Adaptive hash table scaling
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 13:30:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170505133029.GC31461@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <429c8506-c498-0599-4258-7bac947fe29c@oracle.com>

On Thu 04-05-17 14:28:51, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> BTW, I am OK with your patch on top of this "Adaptive hash table" patch, but
> I do not know what high_limit should be from where HASH_ADAPT will kick in.
> 128M sound reasonable to you?

For simplicity I would just use it unconditionally when no high_limit is
set. What would be the problem with that? If you look at current users
(and there no new users emerging too often) then most of them just want
_some_ scaling. The original one obviously doesn't scale with large
machines. Are you OK to fold my change to your patch or you want me to
send a separate patch? AFAIK Andrew hasn't posted this patch to Linus
yet.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-05 13:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-02  5:33 [PATCH v3 0/4] Zeroing hash tables in allocator Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02  5:33 ` Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02  5:33 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] sparc64: NG4 memset 32 bits overflow Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02  5:33   ` Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-03 23:34   ` Andrew Morton
2017-03-03 23:34     ` Andrew Morton
2017-03-02  5:33 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] mm: Zeroing hash tables in allocator Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02  5:33   ` Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02  5:33 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] mm: Updated callers to use HASH_ZERO flag Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02  5:33   ` Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02  5:33 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: Adaptive hash table scaling Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02  5:33   ` Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-03 23:32   ` Andrew Morton
2017-03-03 23:32     ` Andrew Morton
2017-04-26 20:11     ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-26 20:11       ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-02  8:04       ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-02  8:04         ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-04 18:23       ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-04 18:23         ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-04 18:28         ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-04 18:28           ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-05 13:30           ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-05-05 13:30             ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-05 15:33             ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-05 15:33               ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-09  9:46               ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-09  9:46                 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-09  9:46                 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-09 13:07                 ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-09 13:07                   ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-05 13:29         ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-05 13:29           ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-17 15:51     ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-17 15:51       ` Pasha Tatashin

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=20170505133029.GC31461@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=pasha.tatashin@oracle.com \
    --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.