lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:49:57 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <>
To:     SeongJae Park <>
Cc:     SeongJae Park <>,,
        Andrea Arcangeli <>,,,,,,
        Brendan Higgins <>,
        Qian Cai <>,
        Colin Ian King <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        David Hildenbrand <>,,
        Marco Elver <>, "Du, Fan" <>,, Greg Thelen <>,
        Ian Rogers <>,,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        Mel Gorman <>, Minchan Kim <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <>,
        Randy Dunlap <>,
        Rik van Riel <>,
        David Rientjes <>,
        Steven Rostedt <>,
        Mike Rapoport <>,,
        Shuah Khan <>,,, Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Vladimir Davydov <>,
        Yang Shi <>,
        Huang Ying <>,,, Linux MM <>,, LKML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v23 01/15] mm: Introduce Data Access MONitor (DAMON)

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:34 AM SeongJae Park <> wrote:
> > Overall the patch looks good to me. Two concerns I have are if we
> > should damon_callback here or with the real user and the regions part
> > of primitive abstraction. For the first one, I don't have any strong
> > opinion but for the second one I do.
> I'd like to keep 'damon_callback' part here, to let API users know how the
> monitoring result will be available to them.
> For the 'regions' part, I will rename relevant things as below in the next
> version, to reduce any confusion.
> init_target_regions() -> init()
> update_target_regions() -> update()
> regions_update_interval -> update_interval
> last_regions_update -> last_update
> >
> > More specifically the question is if sampling and adaptive region
> > adjustment are general enough to be part of core monitoring context?
> > Can you give an example of a different primitive/use-case where these
> > would be beneficial.
> I think all adress spaces having some spatial locality and monitoring requests
> that need to have upper-bound overhead and best-effort accuracy could get
> benefit from it.  The primitives targetting 'virtual address spaces' and the
> 'physical address space' clearly showed the benefit.

I am still not much convinced on the 'physical address space' use-case
or the way you are presenting it. Anyways I think we start with what
you have and if in future there is a use-case where regions adjustment
does not make sense, we can change it then.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists