On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:36:16 -0500 Gregory Price <gourry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 06:20:09PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:13:35 -0800 Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Leading to... how do we know that this patch makes the kernel better? > > Just focusing on this question: > > The default behavior of weighted interleave without this patch is > equivalent to normal interleave. This provides a differentiation > out-of-the box, and that's just a better experience. > > We may find the default values / calculations need tweaking in the > future, but this gives us a good starting point. Anecdotally, I've > seen an "optimal" distribution of 10:1 based on the numbers run > sub-optimally compared to 7:1 or 13:1 (but better than default mempol). How was this optimality measured/observed? > So there will always be a "try it and see" component to this. > > (Not to mention hardware/firmware lies regularly, and their reported > performance numbers rarely if ever match their tested numbers - so > *at best* this can be considered a best-effort feature)
