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@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
