From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793233561; b=H5qS+njwIfrmvo/qeqbiWiBCZPhwe2HqOUA0exY7bzS54nJKR09DAkJ8NljNvyvj0Twc Ln2p1Rwkpl3y8NzOgJE0aGhLbwNFh0D7rBTptRDZqTq4RTT3/ahkLKDuLfLIVrvXDzS2T Ro837AcDvNDco8TEs/LjreBjpjoybZP8TxP8Z7JwqkSFAwbmntP/bv4yyHOXkITztHdmH w+JzSRdmCH+u5GeF+D6S7Xpz7FFNLS0BTsrFNGP9xlbYdHkqzDYXUP9squy01dEsa9uqW VATiTZnfIDYWaYdrW2pGooV9ije4Nxn37UKaKDg2lIIndRu0BV1V3cP6bvW2fmfNrKw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793233561; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:X-Mailer: In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=URGAbIYsZmrO7zoKja8bTGELNEU0ptfP/g/LFZldzT4=; b=OFf1o0gyV6LvQ0ciPT8aK/jeHV4dg58RF5Id2NJ6at4LFOzlfAuE/YNa6RtbL1ehaWSl ypnt2YxzAy/HZK5VE4J9Qfq1JuqZvqnZ8cFIRPkXssPYZRrTackjR+1GmbAZa0fo/FbdK GnWlpUcml1PdEvoB2b/jn1vx0v7C9ct0nQmUy8VVVjFmapDBqn8xH8/fQhffbMLCOpCdx NpY5fmNuLZGVT5JWDqcxaBspaCkyVSiYwG1ORaPwH4uvL8KoP3fXUq/xWeTEo09OYgPCW 8vx/Jm/Jrr4Rek9SPQ6xKDwoexE8KhvTzNiBA/kIPxd03cDeypaqXvsNb3CBcoBj+zQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=HIMw+WKY; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4448606A31A; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:26:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=HIMw+WKY Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35A541F01829; Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:26:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1793233560; bh=URGAbIYsZmrO7zoKja8bTGELNEU0ptfP/g/LFZldzT4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=HIMw+WKYWlwxxKQz7LcDPrgXPqVxDcT/FqKJqvHmk2595MJau/O1w/72iQxQuLlCr vVafhsd/P8N0KxtKgB44wU7Hwh/N0Ycxa8dNsu9mCmsbc6nK/QgqcS3GMz/iS+AEpF mMrbVRTyJz7H1Xcbpgs07hkb3LiRWvbTXIWuSJOFJ2fWKy3jZhuTMEgL25j3W87mHG T6ykjpTgiLgQKP8Amho5YrPl+29fgJjePsxW95Cl24SgHrYrCVWZuO2iR7B4sEs4XR P8k1V0CCiDf1FiZRQHgTOAKsdsRB46afd+QxyXHuG364RrNn6KZ9vTI4dp0ieKxQqI 37x52cTfuqDIg== From: SJ Park To: Manuel Ebner Cc: SJ Park , corbet@lwn.net, damon@lists.linux.dev, jm5905938@gmail.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim: rewrite complex parts Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 17:25:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20261029002553.167065-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailing-List: damon@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 17:52:17 +0100 Manuel Ebner wrote: > Hi SJ, > > On Tue, 2026-10-27 at 17:19 -0700, SJ Park wrote: > > Hello Manuel, > > > > > > On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 22:23:46 +0100 Manuel Ebner wrote: > > > > > Rewrite complex sentences. > > > > Any special reason to keep this as a separated one?  I think it is ok to merge > > this into the first patch. > > In this mail ( https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261016142921.126622-1-sj@kernel.org/ ) > > Let's do such rewriting with another patch. > > I understood this as 'make it two patches'. Thank you for reminding me the memory. I now remember I thought it is better to be a separate patch. And now I realize I was wrong. Now I think realize this is small enough change that can be collapsed into one patch. Sorry for changing my words. [...] > > > @@ -125,8 +126,8 @@ quota_reset_interval_ms > > >   > > >  The time/size quota charge reset interval in milliseconds. > > >   > > > -The charge reset interval for the quota of time (quota_ms) and size > > > -(quota_sz).  That is, DAMON_RECLAIM does not try reclamation for more than > > > +The charge reset interval for the quota of time is quota_ms and for the quota of > > > +size is quota_sz.  That is, DAMON_RECLAIM does not try reclamation for more than > > >  quota_ms milliseconds or quota_sz bytes within quota_reset_interval_ms > > >  milliseconds. > > > > I think the original sentence was not that confusing.  Also, this changes the > > nuance of the sentence?  What the sentence is saying is > > "quota_reset_interval_ms is the charge reset interval for ...".  If this was > > really confusing, maybe we can add "quota_reset_interval_ms is " part. > > > > But, I start feeling we might trying too much polishing...? > > I think the verb is missing or can you tell which the verb is? If you can > no fix is required. I mean, changing only the first sentence, like below: "quota_reset_interval_ms is the charge reset interval for the quota of time (quota_ms) ans size (quota_sz)." > > > > > >   > > > @@ -137,7 +138,7 @@ quota_mem_pressure_us > > >   > > >  Desired level of memory pressure-stall time in microseconds. > > >   > > > -While keeping the caps that are set by other quotas, DAMON_RECLAIM automatically > > > +While respecting the limits imposed by other quotas, DAMON_RECLAIM automatically > > >  increases and decreases the effective level of the quota aiming this level of > > >  memory pressure is incurred.  System-wide ``some`` memory PSI in microseconds > > >  per quota reset interval (``quota_reset_interval_ms``) is collected and > > > > I'm not sure if the original sentence was really difficult to understand. > > > > I'd prefer dropping this change. > > That's ok. Thank you for accepting my humble suggestion. > > Will you handle the final edit or should I send a [v3]? Could you please send v3? Thanks, SJ [...]