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 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
