linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] DAMON based tiered memory management for CXL memory

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20240613135649.26707-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 06:56:49 -0700
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@...com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
	art.jeongseob@...il.com,
	kernel_team@...ynix.com,
	Hyeongtak Ji <hyeongtak.ji@...com>,
	Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>,
	Yunjeong Mun <yunjeong.mun@...com>,
	damon@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] DAMON based tiered memory management for CXL memory

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:27:26 +0900 Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@...com> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:17:31 +0900 Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@...com> wrote:
> > There was an RFC IDEA "DAMOS-based Tiered-Memory Management" previously
> > posted at [1].
> >
> > It says there is no implementation of the demote/promote DAMOS action
> > are made.  This patch series is about its implementation for physical
> > address space so that this scheme can be applied in system wide level.
> >
> > Changes from RFC v4:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/20240512175447.75943-1-sj@kernel.org
> >   1. Add usage and design documents
> >   2. Rename alloc_demote_folio to alloc_migrate_folio
> >   3. Add evaluation results with "demotion_enabled" true
> >   4. Rebase based on v6.10-rc3
> 
> Sorry for making confusion, I didn't add "PATCH v5" tag for this patch
> series so please ignore and see the resent one.

Thank you for clarifying this.

Nonetheless, I don't mine resetting the version number of a patchset after
dropping RFC.  Actually, I personally rather prefer resetting the version
number.  Anyway, I don't care that much.  Please use any way that you feel more
comfortable :)  Please just keep the number monotonically increase.


Thanks,
SJ

> 
> Honggyu