Re: [DMESG] cpumask_t in action

[jbarnes@sgi.com (Jesse Barnes)]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:18:29PM -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > Dentry cache hash table entries: 33554432 (order: 14, 268435456 bytes)
> > Inode-cache hash table entries: 33554432 (order: 14, 268435456 bytes)
> > IP: routing cache hash table of 8388608 buckets, 131072Kbytes
> > TCP: Hash tables configured (established 67108864 bind 65536)
> > swapper: page allocation failure. order:17, mode:0x20
> 
> Does these hash tables really need to that big? 33 million dentry and
> inode entry? Same thing with network, unless the machine is loaded
> with several gigabit cards, these hash table seems to be exceedingly
> large.

This one only has two gige cards:

tg3.c:v2.2 (August 24, 2003)
PCI: Found IRQ 54 for device 0000:01:04.0
ACPI: No IRQ known for interrupt pin A of device 0000:01:04.0 - using IRQ 54
eth0: Tigon3 [partno(030-1771-000) rev 0105 PHY(5701)] (PCI:66MHz:64-bit) 10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet 08:00:69:13:e6:a7
PCI: Found IRQ 66 for device 0000:11:04.0
ACPI: No IRQ known for interrupt pin A of device 0000:11:04.0 - using IRQ 66
eth1: Tigon3 [partno(030-1771-000) rev 0105 PHY(5701)] (PCI:66MHz:64-bit) 10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet 08:00:69:13:e4:a4
PCI: Found IRQ 53 for device 0000:01:03.0
ACPI: No IRQ known for interrupt pin A of device 0000:01:03.0 - using IRQ 53

As for the dentry and inode-cache tables, yes they're probably too big,
and they're also allocated on node 0 rather than being spread out.

Jesse