On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 01:29:22PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

On 15.09.25 13:23, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 01:14:32PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

On 15.09.25 13:02, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:

quoted

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"?

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)

OK right so we're talking about the same thing, I guess?

I was confused partly becuase of the scale, becuase weren't people setting
this parameter to low values in practice?

And now we make it so we have equivalent of:

0 -> 0
1 -> 256
2 -> 384

With the logarithmic values more tightly bunched at the 'eager' end?

Weren't people setting max_ptes_none to like 20 or 30 or something? So we
should 'bunch' at the other end?

And also aren't we saying that anything over 256 is broken for mTHP? So
weren't we trying to avoid that?

I think it should be something like:

(eagerness -> max_pte_none)

0 -> 0
1 -> ~small %
2 -> ~slightly larger %
etc.
9 -> 50%
10 -> 100%

Right?

--
Cheers

David / dhildenb

Cheers, Lorenzo