From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263533AbTK1VSl (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:18:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263513AbTK1VSl (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:18:41 -0500 Received: from mail.fh-wedel.de ([213.39.232.194]:48590 "EHLO mail.fh-wedel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263533AbTK1VSi (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:18:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:18:27 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: Jack Steiner Cc: Jes Sorensen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: hash table sizes Message-ID: <20031128211827.GA25644@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <16323.23221.835676.999857@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20031125204814.GA19397@sgi.com> <20031125130741.108bf57c.akpm@osdl.org> <20031125211424.GA32636@sgi.com> <20031125132439.3c3254ff.akpm@osdl.org> <20031128145255.GA26853@sgi.com> <20031128193536.GA28519@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20031128193536.GA28519@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [pruned CC: list] On Fri, 28 November 2003 13:35:36 -0600, Jack Steiner wrote: > > Then I still dont understand your proposal. (I probably missed some piece > of the discussion). > > You proposed above to limit the allocation to the amount of memory on a node. Jes didn't _limit_ the allocation to the memory on a node, he _based_ it on it, instead of total memory for all nodes. Therefore a 1024 node NUMA machine with 2GB per node has no bigger hash tables, than a single CPU machine with 2GB total memory, however big that may be. Unless I didn't understand his patch, that is. :) Jörn -- "Error protection by error detection and correction." -- from a university class