"eagerness" would not be like swappiness, and we will really have to be
careful here. I don't know yet when I will have time to look into that.
I guess I missed this part of the converastion, what do you mean?
Johannes raised issues with that on the list and afterwards we had an
offline discussion about some of the details and why something unpredictable
is not good.
Could we get these details on-list so we can discuss them? This doesn't have to
be urgent, but I would like to have a say in this or at least be part of the
converastion please.
Sorry, I only found now time to reply on this point. Johannes raised the
point in [1], and afterwards we went a bit into detail in a off-list
discussion.
In essence, I think he is right that is something we have to be very
careful about. So it turned out as something that will take a lot more
time+effort on my side than I originally thought, turning it not
feasible in the short term given how I already lack behind on so many
other things.
So I concluded that it's probably best to have such and effort be
independent of this series. And in some way it is either way, because
max_ptes_none is just a horrible interface given the values are
architecture dependent.
I'll be happy if we can focus in this series on the bare minimum initial
support, and avoid any magic (scaling / capping) as it all turned out to
be much more tricky (interaction with the deferred shrinker ...) than
most of us initially thought.
But I think we're already on the same page here, just wanted to share a
bit more details on the max_ptes_none vs. eagerness idea.
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
