From: Andi K. <ak...@su...> - 2003-03-01 19:47:18
|
> Was 63-mjb2 vs 63-mjb2+your new patch (ie nothing touching the old > patch). Is it possible to split out the shrinkage from the new cache > algorithm? Maybe we should auto-tune sizes based on the amount of mem > in the machine or something ? I would prefer to only have CONFIG_SMALL (very small hash table for embedded stuff etc.) and the normal 64-128K hash table (64K =16K buckets) More memory in the machine doesn't usually mean more cache, and it is as well a cache size thing. Your experiments seem to suggest that the 64K table performs similar to the 1MB table that plain 2.5.63 uses on your box. I was toying with the idea of increasing it to 128K, need to benchmark that, but definitely not above that because 256K on 64bit machines would be already excessive. -Andi |