On 2017-02-28 19:24, Andi Kleen wrote:
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
While investigating how to improve initialization time of dentry_hashtable
which is 8G long on M6 ldom with 7T of main memory, I noticed that memset()
I don't think a 8G dentry (or other kernel) hash table makes much
sense. I would rather fix the hash table sizing algorithm to have some
reasonable upper limit than to optimize the zeroing.
I believe there are already boot options for it, but it would be better
if it worked out of the box.
-Andi
Hi Andi,
I agree that there should be some smarter cap for maximum hash table
sizes, and as you said it is already possible to set the limits via
parameters. I still think, however, this HASH_ZERO patch makes sense for
the following reasons:
- Even if the default maximum size is reduced the size of these tables
should still be tunable, as it really depends on the way machine is
used, and in it is possible that for some use patterns large hash tables
are necessary.
- Most of them are initialized before smp_init() call. The time from
bootloader to smp_init() should be minimized as parallelization is not
available yet. For example, LDOM domain on which I tested this patch
with few more optimization takes 8.5 seconds to get from grub to
smp_init() (760CPUs and 7T of memory), out of these 8.5 seconds 3.1s
(vs. 11.8s before this patch) are spent initializing these hash tables.
So, even 3.1s is still significant, and should be improved further by
changing the default maximums, but that should be a different patch.
Thank you,
Pasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
