From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262138AbUGMCiD (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:38:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262356AbUGMCiD (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:38:03 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.102]:24705 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262138AbUGMCiB (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:38:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:37:21 -0500 From: "Jose R. Santos" To: dhowells@redhat.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, slpratt@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Making i/dhash_entries cmdline work as it use to. Message-ID: <20040713023721.GA7461@austin.ibm.com> References: <20040712175605.GA1735@rx8.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040712175605.GA1735@rx8.austin.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jose R. Santos [2004-07-12 12:56:05 -0500]: > Also, any particular reason why MAX_SYS_HASH_TABLE_ORDER was set to 14? > I am already seeing the need to go higher on my 64GB setup and was > wondering if this could be bumped up to 19. Actualy, it doesnt look like we need MAX_SYS_HASH_TABLE_ORDER at all so I'm resending the patch which now limits the max size of a hash table to 1/16 total memory pages. This would keep people from doing dangerous things when using the hash_entries. -JRS