On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:25:54PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > > > I would just say "The kernel might decide to use a more conservative > > > approach > > > when collapsing smaller THPs" etc. > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Well I've sort of reviewed oppositely there :) well at least that it needs > > to be > > a hell of a lot clearer (I find that comment really compressed and I just > > don't > > really understand it). > > Right. I think these are just details we should hide from the user. And in > particular, not over-document it so we can more easily change semantics > later.
And when we change semantics we can't change comments? I mean maybe we're talking across purposes here, I'm talking about code comments, not the documentation. I agree the documentation should not mention any of this. > > > > > I guess I didn't think about people reading that and relying on it, so > > maybe we > > could alternatively make that succinct. > > > > But I think it'd be better to say something like "mTHP collapse cannot > > currently > > correctly function with half or more of the PTE entries empty, so we cap at > > just > > below this level" in this case. > > IMHO we should just say that the value might be reduced for internal > purposes and that this behavior might change in the future would likely be > good enough. Again, I assume you mean documentation rather than comments? > > -- > Cheers > > David / dhildenb > Cheers, Lorenzo
