From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BC211D6DB6 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 16:50:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754067044; cv=none; b=PcuCeuElEse5SR7PklMv51qEWCNgqsw3d7VWlhleOhP8PtW3IywpCnjCSc0cVwWHGgTu99LU+fCbpFSc8Aa2PnwppkecsuGx6oYQRafi5e8lue9uSNu+AvJRdpARzkjnG9qycBHqE/h1BSYnFKQ+Z/V4ntGJKMbWBglg3lAvRGk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754067044; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yCsTvSZ2uYa/j4iCTrOUQDgQlndbnppi7HrfEDho8dM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pKbBIfskTGFmvKWlSJN+aGNxfHmVgvnq4Xlp/hduVIHHcg0V/wtkGqFUWmBiaAJo0eXCtgXUhR9fp/IFsDoY0u+eNgCoGkHiekSsQGCAi+76YDEDR0GOtgbNmuXqkxw7Tc4PPEmgaXIuVD5T8e/dHGREEb/oAcr+1malr5Eculo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=qalISDDP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="qalISDDP" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65E70C4CEE7; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 16:50:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754067043; bh=yCsTvSZ2uYa/j4iCTrOUQDgQlndbnppi7HrfEDho8dM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=qalISDDP6/iAPrr19SGlBNPXQmhlSFAnk+oJd3w6ppesOlfJIP9wbLf10p2BTWmne bUbzzB4ZsKmmAPEXeZozP8SEXMlJFzhZFYEcMK/3CxbN1QuWVS5faULBIt1uYVVLjy d2+VaUPhhmmR+LGFeTSTQmmL0mk85TbsvHvYUsYrXTtXgA0YRMyFXe3PzJWJgCoqDI sgwhDAE1aBo/JoTmG+fzAso59WIKpUy2u+M/hfJfDRJiDKL/RAxh6DSqKo0x3p5ocS AS63BqAs13B+NHY7VCrdOkwrNFrlECoIFybYqww57rIXX4WcflVH1FGaJIcp8jT5Ze LxxY2KZwNI8sQ== From: SeongJae Park To: Sang-Heon Jeon Cc: SeongJae Park , Honggyu Kim , kernel_team@skhynix.com, damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/damon: update expired description of damos_action Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:50:41 -0700 Message-Id: <20250801165041.8350-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.5 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: damon@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 01:11:09 +0900 Sang-Heon Jeon wrote: > Hi, Honggyu > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 8:35 PM Honggyu Kim wrote: > > > > Hi Sang-Heon and SeongJae, > > > > On 8/1/2025 2:58 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > Hello Sang-Heon, > > > > > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 22:22:30 +0900 Sang-Heon Jeon wrote: > > > > > >> Nowadays, damos operation actions support more various operation set. > > >> But comments(also, generated documentation) doesn't updated. > > >> So, fix the comments with current support status. [...] > > >> diff --git a/include/linux/damon.h b/include/linux/damon.h [...] > > >> * @DAMOS_WILLNEED: Call ``madvise()`` for the region with MADV_WILLNEED. > > >> * @DAMOS_COLD: Call ``madvise()`` for the region with MADV_COLD. > > >> - * @DAMOS_PAGEOUT: Call ``madvise()`` for the region with MADV_PAGEOUT. > > >> + * @DAMOS_PAGEOUT: Reclaim the region. > > > > > > Nice! > > > > But doesn't it make confusion about whether this pages out to disk or does > > demotion to the lower tier memory? It's because PAGEOUT action doesn't do > > demotion, but it looks "reclaim" includes pageout and demotion together in my > > understanding since /sys/kernel/mm/numa/demotion_enabled was introduced. To my understanding, DAMOS_PAGEOUT can also do demotion when demotion_enabled is set. Am I missing something? > > My intention was just to synchronize with the Design documentation. > > So how about changing the description to `Page out the region`, Would > this be also confusing? > I feel like it would be clearer than using word "reclaim" In my opinion, "reclaim" is good. Thanks, SJ [...]