[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <922e3416-c3b2-4335-8caa-7054b07f1315@lucifer.local>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 17:59:47 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, ziy@...dia.com,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
ryan.roberts@....com, dev.jain@....com, corbet@....net,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
baohua@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org, peterx@...hat.com,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, usamaarif642@...il.com,
sunnanyong@...wei.com, vishal.moola@...il.com,
thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com, yang@...amperecomputing.com,
kas@...nel.org, aarcange@...hat.com, raquini@...hat.com,
anshuman.khandual@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, tiwai@...e.de,
will@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, jack@...e.cz,
cl@...two.org, jglisse@...gle.com, surenb@...gle.com,
zokeefe@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
mhocko@...e.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, hughd@...gle.com,
richard.weiyang@...il.com, lance.yang@...ux.dev, vbabka@...e.cz,
rppt@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com, pfalcato@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 mm-new 06/15] khugepaged: introduce
collapse_max_ptes_none helper function
On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 06:49:48PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Hey Lorenzo,
> > >
> > > > I mean not to beat a dead horse re: v11 commentary, but I thought we were going
> > > > to implement David's idea re: the new 'eagerness' tunable, and again we're now just
> > > > implementing the capping at HPAGE_PMD_NR/2 - 1 thing again?
> > >
> > > I spoke to David and he said to continue forward with this series; the
> > > "eagerness" tunable will take some time, and may require further
> > > considerations/discussion.
> >
> > It would be good to communicate this in the patch, I wasn't aware he had said go
> > ahead with it. Maybe I missed the mail.
>
> Just to clarify: yes, I think we should find a way to move forward with this
> series without an eagerness toggle.
OK, let's please communicate this clearly in future. Maybe I missed the comms on
that.
>
> That doesn't imply that we'll be using the capping as proposed here (I hate
> it, it's just tricky to work around it for now).
OK well this is what I thought, that you hadn't meant that we should go ahead
with the logic completely unaltered from that which was explicitly pushed back
on in v10 I think.
We obviously need to figure out a way forward on this so let's get that
done as quickly as we can.
>
> And ideally, we can do that without any temporary tunables, because I'm sure
> it is a problem we can solve internally long-term.
I went into great detail replying on the relevant thread about this, that's
have that discussion there for sanity's sake.
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> David / dhildenb
>
Thanks, Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists