From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f72.google.com (mail-wm0-f72.google.com [74.125.82.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF4E6B03F1 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 05:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f72.google.com with SMTP id p134so14406362wmg.3 for ; Tue, 09 May 2017 02:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u197si337033wmf.141.2017.05.09.02.46.08 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 May 2017 02:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 11:46:07 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: Adaptive hash table scaling Message-ID: <20170509094607.GG6481@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1488432825-92126-1-git-send-email-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> <1488432825-92126-5-git-send-email-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> <20170303153247.f16a31c95404c02a8f3e2c5f@linux-foundation.org> <20170426201126.GA32407@dhcp22.suse.cz> <40f72efa-3928-b3c6-acca-0740f1a15ba4@oracle.com> <429c8506-c498-0599-4258-7bac947fe29c@oracle.com> <20170505133029.GC31461@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton , Pasha Tatashin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro On Fri 05-05-17 11:33:36, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > > > 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. OK, Andrew tends to fold follow up fixes in his mm tree. But anyway, as you prefer to have this in a separate patch. Could you add this on top Andrew? I believe mnt hash tables need a _reasonable_ upper bound but that is for a separate patch I believe. ---