On 05/05/2017 09:30 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
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?
Sure, that sounds good.
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.
I would like a separate patch because mine has soaked in mm tree for a
while now.
Thank you,
Pasha
--
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>
