[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250702030259.23149-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 20:02:59 -0700
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: Bijan Tabatabai <bijan311@...il.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Bijan Tabatabai <bijantabatab@...ron.com>,
damon@...ts.linux.dev,
kernel-team@...a.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] mm/damon: add struct damos_migrate_dest
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 20:43:46 -0500 Bijan Tabatabai <bijan311@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 7:25 PM SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 17:43:30 -0500 Bijan Tabatabai <bijan311@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:31:28 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Introduce a new struct, namely damos_migrate_dest, for specifying
> > > > multiple DAMOS' migration destination nodes and their weights.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/damon.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/damon.h b/include/linux/damon.h
> > > > index bb58e36f019e..d60addd0b7c8 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/damon.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/damon.h
> > > > @@ -447,6 +447,22 @@ struct damos_access_pattern {
> > > > unsigned int max_age_region;
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * struct damos_migrate_dest - Migration destination nodes and their weights.
> > >
> > > Nit: Can this be renamed to damos_migrate_dests?
> > > I think plural fits better because it stores a list of destinations.
> >
> > Makes sense, agreed. I guess you will do that on your own when you add this on
> > your patch series? Please let me know if you prefer different ways. I could
> > also do that and send it again as RFC v2 of this series.
>
> I can do this in my patch series.
Thank you!
> Would the best way for me to do that be to send modified versions of
> this patch series with my patches, or should I send one additional
> patch that just renames the struct with my patches?
I think the former (making modification in place of this patch) is better, for
people who will read the commit log in future. Please don't forget adding your
Singed-off-by: tag, and let me know if any help is needed!
Thanks,
SJ
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists