From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f178.google.com (mail-pg1-f178.google.com [209.85.215.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C1B528504F for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2026 19:04:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.178 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776020693; cv=none; b=jjDlnrt9T8Jj8qd+0zqxkFtc/cmmyLwzwUpiHQ0Z92IJgzOkMmjtM2ZqZaKUZQ75+m3GchCbQwYLacfJlbPHmU0vtD+NZGJyhWHidm+ljqhihn8n60Ru9gspjzjMM1ZSnByZiXMKgXoqeySDz7VQUIT8hvEwgkDlVkhizULovz8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776020693; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nZH2iK8e8ZPuHCez+zJ67JSDmPIDpL2Z+MnvOnc0RLg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=AMtP7p9W0X73O1aoOVI/nLf+TznnKLUofndjNpdJjuEtEQwTjoEgQlA5970nDUCjUiJEozcIYtgmfG7qQz5xhRheccPITzaGNsVe3rTX92d9s8B8SRPhqj6aygyev50r5MoHgOnfdPZHmnIiqZn6wLT2iV4njg2T7giDVStsCXg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=XHTdJ6fq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.178 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="XHTdJ6fq" Received: by mail-pg1-f178.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-c76b0cda2aeso1492794a12.2 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2026 12:04:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1776020691; x=1776625491; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=4xxA5sfGEOPcW6uW3CKulYm8b89rPouT75E/m8n6d44=; b=XHTdJ6fqspxmrhtal9LVj6KqfMf0/oLh5zHKrCU/XPTWk2nPVRylf3NXBdBWRZaQd0 aNia4fB9VQ86WbSBNHc4YK9007lQGWrEUnC55Ywyqs7jLyv+fYI9fjO+rmnJjNr896J4 QZDXLesWeap/u1zjKOvBvTvtR0MCaKyRaIqeZBxG/OUYsetNk7ETMQQRB6t3jTJ1FQzE Dpuy1VOMnRXGEhR1vsDLN3nLPMKDufy6XZTMoVaP2EZVKL1kvkBv6BAZnPZoXVooRi6S Dqg3Ogyej3m4NtU6UVJBYHYdkt8lOn4GLDcWmGCxreNgNTzyjs4HkS41hkV+5DIkVyOh T+ZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1776020691; x=1776625491; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4xxA5sfGEOPcW6uW3CKulYm8b89rPouT75E/m8n6d44=; b=qnJU2NKvEth9YSsDlAFI5hpQ8gFo+iFZvE7KRZcJ51ce6rtCMVe7FwiZtVHj3grY3f 692w+lBpx5BBIncawjBd4t6OA15bzG1QGlSM/W9oDJYVkUlauhxgzuHkUWzbEZcNsDpb xyCwnhLwSJG0ms+rzi5v6slPaxOIJLQkxyfBoev2kRd+3r6z6EUud0LtHdM1AYt91pat XBGV7eeC3HhtOeRw54q6vHYcoyyLPbFm9FJOMnB8MJsKAntBFHApB9nXO0CDfP0WPETC GFQzrvZx3uYMzEzrrGpoyahDQntG35UUBJmo8R/FgaflogcvfKbvl9ZwyiHEbaZjuK7/ CYfA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ8aAgmPWamtFAHRyVlHQCulrlxu5jWqAi2dvj2M7wuD8SjA+AHNgl/jq0RKHRK18g+W81JWqw==@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyX+ifm/SPw4rvkRMz2TFS/bP6Ixzgbm5h7aTkdfvplAC9CgDFt GgC7tDT3fBin48TWr2erJj2iwcFUT9EpOu7gVeMnnMcSCZtYpp8LZJ2G X-Gm-Gg: AeBDiet2aVLGIDNJZQ8ukJpoqUVaY9vOjWVFxAezpUTeVBwuEALArukS4L1jPmXgmXy MWBE8hDWbCz9OI+TbG+15H67BdlLpZ2waUA11YNN4Wci7g2qfo/Jb5Xz7KZHVJBZ39L8RuDqHW4 FYrf1KorGMY45RIP5ZuOBHX8NsQN9yEHlHx+dpFzZLA+f77nKJ5ftka2RWCTAI9XQWgjoVSnM1o wsKkc3dr/7sQ7NFdLyvjwXIqEVEXO+Ka3j+X0A6u7lkEvLbn+neec2PBgOqOQYu/iMmOLsfWug+ befZrDgflAGDPhW2GvWBKhi8DIpGUtlvX7glpilXixqQhQHXdXgALJhgcaaxZL8LntF7TLCsSnC zRXp7y/GKbNLo4Cw5TO8IvbirqPeol0SZwobv6eZQKnU636JsAEj7WNVd+DjYp2LGdyGU99h7+7 I7uiRElW8ipgHjfpNloQKGkJPhim4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2fce:b0:35e:599f:aef0 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-35e599fb177mr3237144a91.11.1776020690790; Sun, 12 Apr 2026 12:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celestia ([2402:1980:898b:301c:d085:a35:99e7:ffec]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-35e411ff4e1sm9924144a91.3.2026.04.12.12.04.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 12 Apr 2026 12:04:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Liew Rui Yan To: sj@kernel.org Cc: aethernet65535@gmail.com, damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: (sashiko review) [PATCH v4 1/2] mm/damon/lru_sort: validate min_region_size to be power of 2 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 03:04:55 +0800 Message-ID: <20260412190455.6685-1-aethernet65535@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.53.0 In-Reply-To: <20260411153821.95491-1-sj@kernel.org> References: <20260411153821.95491-1-sj@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: damon@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi SeongJae, Thank you for your detailed explanation and for being patient with me. I sincerely apologize for the confusion and the extra workload my unclear communication has caused you. It was never my intention to hide context or game the system; I simply misjudged the priorities and failed to provide the full picture. I want to continue contributing to DAMON. I truly enjoy working on it, and I'm grateful for the opportunity. On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:38:21 -0700 SeongJae Park wrote: > > Thank you for sharing these. But seems even this context is incomplete from my > perspective... > > The Real Context > ---------------- > > The real start of the context is probably the question [1] that you asked on > 2026-03-18. At that time, we found committing wrong parameters stops DAMON > without an user-visible error. We agreed DAMON being killed is no problem but > the absence of user-visible error is a minor user experience problem that > better to be improved. So you planned to make the user experience improvement. You're right - that question was the real starting point. Back then, I hadn't yet realized that an unexpectedly terminated kdamond cannot be restarted. After that discussion, I started working on synchronous commit patch [1]. > > Apparently series A is the followup of that. The first version was posted on > 2026-03-26, according to the changelog of this patch series. I can show I was > saying the patch was confusing on the thread. Series A came from a Sashiko review [2] that appeared while I was working on that synchronous commit patch. It [3] was a new, separate issue. > > While the review of the confusing series A was ongoing, you posted [3] the RFC > of series B on 2026-03-31. This patch reported one important finding: the > silent DAMON stop is not just a minor user experience issue but a serious bug > because it cannot be started again. I discovered the "kdamond cannot restart" problem by accident while testing other things. That's why I treated it as a separate issue from Series A, not as something directly related. > > And this made things much more confusing. There are multiple ways to trigger > the issue. Wrong addr_unit commit is just one of the ways. We discussed the > way to fix the real issue. So, by looking back this, I think you should > prioritized series B from the point, or make suer series A is only for the > minor user experience improvement. Or asked me what to prioritize. You didn't > and I missed the fact that you are also working on series A. Here's what happened in my head, and I'm sorry I didn't say it loud at the time: After you advised me to slow down [4], I thought you preferred me to focus on one series at a time. Since Series A looked closer to merge, I decided to finish it first, then move to Series B. I should have asked you what to prioritize instead of assuming. That was my mistake. > > But you just continued posting new versions of series A. I was wrongly > thinking that is still the minor user experience improvement. I still think > the patches were implicitly saying so. I'm not sure if it was intentional or > not. But definitely it was confusing me. On 2026-04-02, I started feeling I'm > missing some of the contexts, and asked you more clarification of user impacts > [4] and full history [5]. You posted v3 [6] right after I asked the question, > even without answering the question. Only from this point it became clear > sereis A is not just a minor user experience improvement but a critical bug > fix. Now I think you should clarify this can also fix one trigger point of the > critical bug but the real fix is work in progress, and this is till only a > minor user experience improvement. But because you didn't, and my poor memory > is volatile, at this point I was thinking this all the work you are doing for > the series B-exposed bug. Regarding your "[4][5]": When you asked about Cc:stable@, I got excited and focused on figuring out the Fixes tag and stable rules. When you asked if I had other patches, I thought you meant the older "addr_unit power-of-2 validation" patch [3] from before Series A. I didn't realize you were asking about all my in-progress work. I'm sorry for the confusion. > > In the response to the sashiko review on this thread, therefore, I was thinking > you are thinking the wrong addr_unit commit is the only way to trigger the bug. > I didn't want to ask you to work from the beginning to fix the entire bug, so I > was saying fixing the real bug for all exploit points is out of the scope of > this bug. > > But now it is turned out that you were aware of the other ways to trigger the > bug, and didn't transparentl and explicitly exposing that. To be honest, I only knew about the 'addr_unit' trigger. I was vaguely aware that memory allocation failures could also cause termination, but I never reproduced them or investigated further. I should have told you this earlier. > > So I withdraw what I told on the reply to the sashiko review. And appreciate > sashiko developers again for giving us a chance to finding this. > > Next Steps > ---------- > > So, what to do? Please prioritize series B, if you still willing to do. It is > ok to keep doing series A, but only as the minor user experience improvement. > Clearly explain the whole context you are aware of. Don't Cc stable@ for > series A, as it is only an incomplete fix of it. The fix of the one trigger > point is just a side effect. Yes, I absolutely want to continue contributing to DAMON. I realize most of this confusion came from me misinterpreting your words or making assumptions without asking. So this time, I want to be explicit: 1. I will remove the Cc stable@ 2. Since you suggested prioritizing Series B, would you prefer me to send a revised v5 of Series A now, or should I wait until Series B is settled to avoid more noise in your inbox? 3. I will focus on Series B starting now. > > And For Future Contributions > ---------------------------- > > Liew, I really appreciate your contributions. You found and shared important > DAMON bugs. But apparently your communication has many rooms to improve, at > least for poort DAMON maintainer who have to work with only limited resources > including the poort and volatile memory. I find I was asking clarifications to > your mails multiple times. I have to say it was even frustrating sometimes and > definitely took quite amount of my resource. Meanwhile, from my uncautiously > biased perspective, you were only adding more traffic and confusions. I'm very sorry for the trouble I caused. Moving forward, I will ask before assuming, and I will make sure my intentions are clear. > > This makes me disappointed and even suspect your intention... I really hate > myself suspecting someone. But we are in the world of bad actors that now > gained the power of AI. We actually had a suspicious case from DAMON > contributors recently, do you remember? Yes, I remember the Josh Law case. I am not a bot. I have no intention of gaming contributions or harming DAMON. I just want to do real work. > > I want to still believe you, so I will do so. Please feel free to keep > contributing to DAMON as long as that's what you want to do. But, please aware > of the fact that DAMON maintainer has poor volatile memory and working with > limited resource, and try to make every conversation super clear and > transparent, from next time. Thank you for your honesty, and for still trusting me. I will continue contributing to DAMON. I will work hard to make my emails clear and transparent, and I will ask questions whenever something is ambiguous, so we can stay aligned. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/20260318153731.97470-1-aethernet65535@gmail.com > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/20260327062627.66426-1-aethernet65535@gmail.com > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/20260330164347.12772-1-aethernet65535@gmail.com > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/20260402140314.74600-1-sj@kernel.org > [5] https://lore.kernel.org/20260402152915.75294-1-sj@kernel.org > [6] https://lore.kernel.org/20260403052837.58063-1-aethernet65535@gmail.com [1] https://lore.kernel.org/20260321002642.22712-1-aethernet65535@gmail.com [2] https://lore.kernel.org/20260325025317.86571-1-sj@kernel.org [3] https://lore.kernel.org/20260327062627.66426-1-aethernet65535@gmail.com [4] https://lore.kernel.org/20260403161906.65008-1-sj@kernel.org Best regards, Rui Yan