On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 05:27:24AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:11:42PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > One minor nit:
> >
> > > +struct dentry_hash {
> > > + unsigned int shift;
> > > + unsigned long mask;
> > > + struct hlist_head *table;
> > > +};
> >
> > I don't see
From: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 05:27:24 +0100
> Sounds great, I would be happy to help review it. If we can create a
> bit of common infrastructure, the dcache conversion might become a bit
> more palatable and we could look at other things like the inode hash
> as
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:11:42PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:37:43 +0100
>
> > So I introduce a new method for resizing hash tables with RCU, and apply
> > that to the dentry hash.
>
> Thanks for doing this work Nick. I'm
From: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:37:43 +0100
> So I introduce a new method for resizing hash tables with RCU, and apply
> that to the dentry hash.
Thanks for doing this work Nick. I'm going to take your ideas
and apply them to an ipv4 routing cache dynamic growth
From: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:37:43 +0100
So I introduce a new method for resizing hash tables with RCU, and apply
that to the dentry hash.
Thanks for doing this work Nick. I'm going to take your ideas
and apply them to an ipv4 routing cache dynamic growth
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:11:42PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:37:43 +0100
So I introduce a new method for resizing hash tables with RCU, and apply
that to the dentry hash.
Thanks for doing this work Nick. I'm going to take
From: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 05:27:24 +0100
Sounds great, I would be happy to help review it. If we can create a
bit of common infrastructure, the dcache conversion might become a bit
more palatable and we could look at other things like the inode hash
as well.
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 05:27:24AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:11:42PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
One minor nit:
+struct dentry_hash {
+ unsigned int shift;
+ unsigned long mask;
+ struct hlist_head *table;
+};
I don't see any reason to make
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:37:43PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is one
> of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more than one
> or
> two hundred thousand dentries. And that's with several kernel trees
> From: William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:56:31 -0800
>> just do it on a per-directory basis so you don't intermix children
>> of different parents in some boot-time -allocated global trainwreck
>> and you're home free. Benchmarking is probably needed to gauge
From: William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:56:31 -0800
> just do it on a per-directory basis so you don't intermix children
> of different parents in some boot-time -allocated global trainwreck
> and you're home free. Benchmarking is probably needed to gauge
>
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 08:24:44PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> You would be better served by a data structure different from a hashtable.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:09:37AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Out of curiosity, what better data structure do you have in mind for
> the dentry
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 08:24:44PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
You would be better served by a data structure different from a hashtable.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:09:37AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Out of curiosity, what better data structure do you have in mind for
the dentry hash?
From: William Lee Irwin III [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:56:31 -0800
just do it on a per-directory basis so you don't intermix children
of different parents in some boot-time -allocated global trainwreck
and you're home free. Benchmarking is probably needed to gauge
which
From: William Lee Irwin III [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:56:31 -0800
just do it on a per-directory basis so you don't intermix children
of different parents in some boot-time -allocated global trainwreck
and you're home free. Benchmarking is probably needed to gauge
which
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:37:43PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is one
of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more than one
or
two hundred thousand dentries. And that's with several kernel trees worth of
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 01:07:23PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:37:43 +0100
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +static void dcache_hash_resize(unsigned int new_shift);
> > +static void mod_nr_dentry(int mod)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long dentry_size;
> > +
>
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 08:24:44PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:37:43PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is
> > one of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have
> > more than one
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:37:43PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is
> one of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have
> more than one or two hundred thousand dentries. And that's with
> several kernel trees worth
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:37:43 +0100
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static void dcache_hash_resize(unsigned int new_shift);
> +static void mod_nr_dentry(int mod)
> +{
> + unsigned long dentry_size;
> +
> + dentry_stat.nr_dentry += mod;
> +
> + dentry_size = 1 <<
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 02:26:02AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 09:25:28AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system
> > >is one
> > >of the biggest
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:31:30PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 2/23/07, Zach Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'd love to see a generic implementation of RCU hashing that
> >subsystems can then take advantage of. It's long been on the fun
> >side of my todo list. The side I never
On 2/23/07, Zach Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd love to see a generic implementation of RCU hashing that
subsystems can then take advantage of. It's long been on the fun
side of my todo list. The side I never get to :/.
There's an active thread on netdev about implementing an RCU hash.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 09:25:28AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> >
> >The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system
> >is one
> >of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more
> >than one or
> >two
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:31:17PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Friday 23 February 2007 16:37, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is one
> > of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more than
> > one or two hundred
On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system
is one
of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more
than one or
two hundred thousand dentries. And that's with several kernel trees
worth of
entries.
On Friday 23 February 2007 16:37, Nick Piggin wrote:
> The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is one
> of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more than
> one or two hundred thousand dentries. And that's with several kernel trees
> worth of
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is one
of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more than one or
two hundred thousand dentries. And that's with several kernel trees worth of
entries. Most desktop and probably even many types of servers will
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is one
of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more than one or
two hundred thousand dentries. And that's with several kernel trees worth of
entries. Most desktop and probably even many types of servers will
On Friday 23 February 2007 16:37, Nick Piggin wrote:
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is one
of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more than
one or two hundred thousand dentries. And that's with several kernel trees
worth of entries.
On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system
is one
of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more
than one or
two hundred thousand dentries. And that's with several kernel trees
worth of
entries.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:31:17PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Friday 23 February 2007 16:37, Nick Piggin wrote:
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is one
of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more than
one or two hundred thousand
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 09:25:28AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system
is one
of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have more
than one or
two hundred thousand
On 2/23/07, Zach Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd love to see a generic implementation of RCU hashing that
subsystems can then take advantage of. It's long been on the fun
side of my todo list. The side I never get to :/.
There's an active thread on netdev about implementing an RCU hash.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:31:30PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 2/23/07, Zach Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd love to see a generic implementation of RCU hashing that
subsystems can then take advantage of. It's long been on the fun
side of my todo list. The side I never get to :/.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 02:26:02AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 09:25:28AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system
is one
of the biggest wasters of memory
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:37:43 +0100
Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static void dcache_hash_resize(unsigned int new_shift);
+static void mod_nr_dentry(int mod)
+{
+ unsigned long dentry_size;
+
+ dentry_stat.nr_dentry += mod;
+
+ dentry_size = 1 dentry_hash-shift;
+
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:37:43PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is
one of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have
more than one or two hundred thousand dentries. And that's with
several kernel trees worth of
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 08:24:44PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:37:43PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
The dentry hash uses up 8MB for 1 million entries on my 4GB system is
one of the biggest wasters of memory for me. Because I rarely have
more than one or two
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 01:07:23PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:37:43 +0100
Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static void dcache_hash_resize(unsigned int new_shift);
+static void mod_nr_dentry(int mod)
+{
+ unsigned long dentry_size;
+
+
40 matches
Mail list logo
