On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 9:47 AM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > No particular reason why we can't squeeze it into swap counts other > than clarity :) It's going to be a bit annoying working with swap > count values (swap count increment is now * 2 instead of ++ etc.). errr.. += 2 I suppose (since the lowest bit is now the swap cache bit). But point stands I suppose lol. Getting exact swap count will be swap read then divide by 2 etc.
