Once could also easily support the value 255 (HPAGE_PMD_NR / 2- 1), but not sure
if we have to add that for now.
Yeah not so sure about this, this is a 'just have to know' too, and yes you
might add it to the docs, but people are going to be mightily confused, esp if
it's a calculated value.
I don't see any other way around having a separate tunable if we don't just have
something VERY simple like on/off.
Yeah, not advocating that we add support for other values than 0/511,
really.
Also the mentioned issue sounds like something that needs to be fixed elsewhere
honestly in the algorithm used to figure out mTHP ranges (I may be wrong - and
happy to stand corrected if this is somehow inherent, but reallly feels that
way).
I think the creep is unavoidable for certain values.
If you have the first two pages of a PMD area populated, and you allow
for at least half of the #PTEs to be non/zero, you'd collapse first a
order-2 folio, then and order-3 ... until you reached PMD order.
So for now we really should just support 0 / 511 to say "don't collapse
if there are holes" vs. "always collapse if there is at least one pte used".
Because, as raised in the past, I'm afraid nobody on this earth has a clue how
to set this parameter to values different to 0 (don't waste memory with
khugepaged)
and 511 (page fault behavior).
Yup
If any other value is set, essentially
pr_warn("Unsupported 'max_ptes_none' value for mTHP collapse");
for now and just disable it.
Hmm but under what circumstances? I would just say unsupported value not mention
mTHP or people who don't use mTHP might find that confusing.
Well, we can check whether any mTHP size is enabled while the value is
set to something unexpected. We can then even print the problematic
sizes if we have to.
We could also just just say that if the value is set to something else
than 511 (which is the default), it will be treated as being "0" when
collapsing mthp, instead of doing any scaling.
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
