On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 02:51:11PM -0500, Bob Pearson wrote: > On 10/7/21 2:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 01:53:27PM -0500, Bob Pearson wrote: > > > >> On looking, Rao's patch is not in for-next. Last one was > >> January. Which branch are you looking at? > > > > Oh, it is still in the wip branch, try now > > > > Jason > > > > I see the issue. Rao is asking for 2^20 objects max by default which will > require 128KiB of memory in the index reservation bit mask for each of them. > There are 4 indexed objects QP by qpn, SRQ by srqn, MR by rkey and MW by rkey. > That's 512KiB of memory which seems excessive to me for many use cases where the > number of objects is fairly small. > > The bit mask is used to allocate and free the indices and there is also a red black > tree that is used to look up objects by their index (or key if they use keys instead.) > > If there is a usual way to address these kinds of issues in Linux maybe we should > consider that. Use an allocating xarray But for these AV patches just fix the merge conflict to something sane and go ahead Jason
