On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/31/2013 03:05 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> >> >> On 10/31/2013 03:02 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Josh Boyer (jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >>>>> (As for memory-critical cloud... I have no idea what that is to be >>>>> honest. All I hear from the cloud people is "smaller is better". >>>>> Mostly that's image size, not memory overhead but I can imagine they >>>>> want that limited as well.) >>>> >>>> Admittedly, it's not the same as unswappable kernel memory, but I wonder if >>>> for 2MB we can find that sort of working set size reductions in other places >>>> on the cloud image. >>> >>> Quite possibly so. I just hate to be wasteful if none of the 3 >>> products clearly has a need. If 1024 is sufficient, we'll likely go >>> with that. >>> >> >> The reason I'm pushing 1024 as a target is that we had a previous request from >> users at SGI for a 1024. At least that is something we can point to instead of >> picking a value that no one really wants. >> >> IMO of course ;) >> > > Memory usage data > > difference between 1024 cpus and 128 cpus = 421k OK. I'll change this in rawhide today. > difference between 4096 cpus and 128 cpus = 1.9M I am now amazed that my memory actually had this right. That's rare. Anyway, thanks much for getting these numbers. They really help. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
