On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:52:03PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 15.09.25 12:43, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:22:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > > > 0 -> ~100% used (~0% none) > > > 1 -> ~50% used (~50% none) > > > 2 -> ~25% used (~75% none) > > > 3 -> ~12.5% used (~87.5% none) > > > 4 -> ~11.25% used (~88,75% none) > > > ... > > > 10 -> ~0% used (~100% none) > > > > Oh and shouldn't this be inverted? > > > > 0 eagerness = we eat up all none PTE entries? Isn't that pretty eager? :P > > 10 eagerness = we aren't eager to eat up none PTE entries at all? > > > > Or am I being dumb here? > > Good question. > > For swappiness it's: 0 -> no swap (conservative) > > So intuitively I assumed: 0 -> no pte_none (conservative) > > You're the native speaker, so you tell me :)
To me this is about 'eagerness to consume empty PTE entries' so 10 is more eager, 0 is not eager at all, i.e. inversion of what you suggest :) > > -- > Cheers > > David / dhildenb > Cheers, Lorenzo
