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
