On 15.09.25 13:02, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:52:03PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

On 15.09.25 12:43, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:22:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

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"?

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb