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? So we're saying, currently, 0 means 'I will tolerate up to 511 pte_none, and eat them all I am very very eager', and 10 means 'I will not tolerate any pte_none' right? Correct me if I'm wrong here! :>) > > -- > Cheers > > David / dhildenb > Cheers, Lorenzo
