On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 08:58:25AM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > Hi Andi, > > Thank you for looking at this. I mentioned earlier, I would not want to > impose a cap. However, if you think that for example dcache needs a cap, > there is already a mechanism for that via high_limit argument, so the client Lots of arguments are not the solution. Today this only affects a few highend systems, but we'll see much more large memory systems in the future. We don't want to have all these users either waste their memory, or apply magic arguments. > can be changed to provide that cap. However, this particular patch addresses > scaling problem for everyone by making it scale with memory at a slower > pace. Yes your patch goes in the right direction and should be applied. Just could be even more aggressive. Long term probably all these hash tables need to be converted to rhash to dynamically resize. -Andi -- 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>
