On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:02 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 08:22:10PM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:28:56PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > > > +====== ======== > > > > +Values Features > > > > +====== ======== > > > > +0x0001 the multigenerational LRU > > > > > > The multigenerational LRU what? > > > > Itself? This depends on the POV, and I'm trying to determine what would > > be the natural way to present it. > > > > MGLRU itself could be seen as an add-on atop the existing page reclaim > > or an alternative in parallel. The latter would be similar to sl[aou]b, > > and that's how I personally see it. > > > > But here I presented it more like the former because I feel this way is > > more natural to users because they are like switches on a single panel. > > Than I think it should be described as "enable multigenerational LRU" or > something like this. Will do. > > > What will happen if I write 0x2 to this file? > > > > Just like turning on a branch breaker while leaving the main breaker > > off in a circuit breaker box. This is how I see it, and I'm totally > > fine with changing it to whatever you'd recommend. > > That was my guess that when bit 0 is clear the rest do not matter :) > What's important, IMO, is that it is stated explicitly in the description. Will do. > > > Please consider splitting "enable" and "features" attributes. > > > > How about s/Features/Components/? > > I meant to use two attributes: > > /sys/kernel/mm/lru_gen/enable for the main breaker, and > /sys/kernel/mm/lru_gen/features (or components) for the branch breakers It's a bit superfluous for my taste. I generally consider multiple items to fall into the same category if they can be expressed by a type of array, and I usually pack an array into a single file.
