linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH -next 11/16] mm/damon: add addr_unit for DAMON_RECLAIM and LRU

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <f609350c-2cfe-4cbe-98ad-a154a858fe4d@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 22:59:00 +0800
From: Quanmin Yan <yanquanmin1@...wei.com>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <damon@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <zuoze1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -next 11/16] mm/damon: add addr_unit for DAMON_RECLAIM
 and LRU_SORT

Hi SJ,

在 2025/8/15 0:11, SeongJae Park 写道:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:59:04 +0800 Quanmin Yan <yanquanmin1@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>> 在 2025/8/14 0:36, SeongJae Park 写道:
>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 13:07:01 +0800 Quanmin Yan <yanquanmin1@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In module DAMON_RECLAIM and DAMON_LRU_SORT, the damon_ctx is
>>>> independent of the core, necessitating dedicated addr_unit
>>>> integration for these features.
>>>> Additionally, if the input monitor_region_start and monitor_region_end
>>>> are both 0 while addr_unit is set to a non-zero valuethe default
>>>> system RAM range should be divided by addr_unit.
>>> Do you plan to, and need to use DAMON_RECLAIM and DAMON_LRU_SORT on LPAE-ARM32
>>> environments?  Can't you use DAMON sysfs interface instead?  If need to use the
>>> modules, this change looks good to me in high level.  But if not, I'd like to
>>> skip this change, and wait until someone requests it.
>>>
>>> I'll review the code change in depth after the above question is answered.
>>>
>> Hi SJ,
>>
>> Yes, we need to use these modules in an LPAE-ARM32 environment. The modular
>> approach often provides more flexibility in our workflow, so we would greatly
>> appreciate it if you could take some time to review the code!🙂
> Thank you for clarifying.  Ok, I understand this change is really required.
>
> However, I think reviewing and revising this part may take time.  Meanwhile,
> seems this part is not an essential one of this patch series, and has no
> problem at be separated and merged after the essential parts.
>
> So, could we separate this part from this patch series?  That is, let's work on
> the essential part first.  After the work on the essential part is done, you
> could post this part as another patch series, and then we can work together
> again on it.

You are right, let's focus on the essential part first.

Thanks,
Quanmin Yan

>
> Thanks,
> SJ
>
> [...]