[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251020150625.34941-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 08:06:25 -0700
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: Quanmin Yan <yanquanmin1@...wei.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
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: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm/damon: fixes for address alignment issues in DAMON_LRU_SORT and DAMON_RECLAIM
On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 21:01:23 +0800 Quanmin Yan <yanquanmin1@...wei.com> wrote:
> In DAMON_LRU_SORT and DAMON_RECLAIM, damon_set_regions() will apply
> DAMON_MIN_REGION as the core address alignment, and the monitoring
> target address ranges would be aligned on DAMON_MIN_REGION * addr_unit.
> When users 1) set addr_unit to a value larger than 1, and 2) set the
> monitoring target address range as not aligned on DAMON_MIN_REGION *
> addr_unit, it will cause DAMON_LRU_SORT and DAMON_RECLAIM to operate
> on unexpectedly large physical address ranges.
>
> For example, if the user sets the monitoring target address range to
> [4, 8) and addr_unit as 1024, the aimed monitoring target address range
> is [4 KiB, 8 KiB). Assuming DAMON_MIN_REGION is 4096, so resulting
> target address range will be [0, 4096) in the DAMON core layer address
> system, and [0, 4 MiB) in the physical address space, which is an
> unexpected range.
>
> To fix the issue, add a min_sz_region parameter to
> damon_set_region_biggest_system_ram_default() and use it when calling
> damon_set_regions(), replacing the direct use of DAMON_MIN_REGION.
>
> Changes from v1
> (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251016104717.2194909-1-yanquanmin1@huawei.com/)
> - Added more issue description in the commit message.
> - Split the original fix patch into two separate patches.
Thank you for nicely revising this!
Thanks,
SJ
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists