From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: Adaptive hash table scaling
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 15:32:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170303153247.f16a31c95404c02a8f3e2c5f@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1488432825-92126-5-git-send-email-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:33:45 -0500 Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> wrote:
> Allow hash tables to scale with memory but at slower pace, when HASH_ADAPT
> is provided every time memory quadruples the sizes of hash tables will only
> double instead of quadrupling as well. This algorithm starts working only
> when memory size reaches a certain point, currently set to 64G.
>
> This is example of dentry hash table size, before and after four various
> memory configurations:
>
> MEMORY SCALE HASH_SIZE
> old new old new
> 8G 13 13 8M 8M
> 16G 13 13 16M 16M
> 32G 13 13 32M 32M
> 64G 13 13 64M 64M
> 128G 13 14 128M 64M
> 256G 13 14 256M 128M
> 512G 13 15 512M 128M
> 1024G 13 15 1024M 256M
> 2048G 13 16 2048M 256M
> 4096G 13 16 4096M 512M
> 8192G 13 17 8192M 512M
> 16384G 13 17 16384M 1024M
> 32768G 13 18 32768M 1024M
> 65536G 13 18 65536M 2048M
OK, but what are the runtime effects? Presumably some workloads will
slow down a bit. How much? How do we know that this is a worthwhile
tradeoff?
If the effect of this change is "undetectable" then those hash tables
are simply too large, and additional tuning is needed, yes?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-03 23:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-02 5:33 [PATCH v3 0/4] Zeroing hash tables in allocator Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02 5:33 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] sparc64: NG4 memset 32 bits overflow Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-03 23:34 ` Andrew Morton
2017-03-02 5:33 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] mm: Zeroing hash tables in allocator Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02 5:33 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] mm: Updated callers to use HASH_ZERO flag Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-02 5:33 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: Adaptive hash table scaling Pavel Tatashin
2017-03-03 23:32 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2017-04-26 20:11 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-02 8:04 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-04 18:23 ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-04 18:28 ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-05 13:30 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-05 15:33 ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-09 9:46 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-09 13:07 ` Pasha Tatashin
2017-05-05 13:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-17 15:51 ` Pasha Tatashin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170303153247.f16a31c95404c02a8f3e2c5f@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@oracle.com \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox