On 15.09.25 13:23, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 01:14:32PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 15.09.25 13:02, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
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 :)
Just so we are on the same page: it is about "eagerness to collapse", right?
Wouldn't a 0 mean "I am not eager, I will not waste any memory, I am very
careful and bail out on any pte_none" vs. 10 meaning "I am very eager, I
will collapse no matter what I find in the page table, waste as much memory
as I want"?
Yeah, this is my understanding of your scale, or is my understanding also
inverted? :)
Right now it's:
eagerness max_ptes_none
0 -> 511
...
10 -> 0
Right?
Just so we are on the same page, this is what I had:
0 -> ~100% used (~0% none)
So "0" -> 0 pte_none or 512 used.
(note the used vs. none)
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
