On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 02:24:26AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 6/3/13 12:55 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 09:27:53PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> Hey Konstaintin, shouldn't this be scaled against the actual amount of > >> KVA we have instead of an arbitrary limit? > > The commit changes the buffer cache to scale according to the available > > KVA, making the scaling less dumb. > > > > I do not understand what exactly do you want to do, please describe the > > algorithm you propose to implement instead of my change. > > Sure, how about deriving the hardcoded "32" from the maxkva a machine > can have? > > Is that possible? I do not see why this would be useful. Initially I thought about simply capping nbuf at 100000 without referencing any "memory". Then I realized that this would somewhat conflict with (unlikely) changes to the value of BKVASIZE due to "factor".
pgpds2zk0Me14.pgp
Description: PGP signature
