From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 61C5C534441; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 13:52:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791985971; cv=none; b=HaZkrkfVuDxXi7UzAZyHyKL5E3/jXc3BOoXtACc1LbkdQlgC2oe59Srox3WMFmbvDfa3ObATf+eyWLYZfp5J1YCpk4dbDab6YV7beuy4iDEBQJoBKhfhOQIr8yTN31If3NHXajubXfWA3Hjs9GCiF7DPKOT+fYgPVDDf12xPDhU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791985971; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fVcfycRlOEElJyQh0w5ed2ebgn9Frj4EmHHrj7/wYFU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GeaUEJkULg4QdofnC9cYpHSVlnPE2efCzB6Zw0nFsKqxxvBWpiVlYc69yotJTQEXqBMwAIY5bL7w2IlCz0Mnl1GxbrsZROPhndF6j24P6G5T6qBI8wWEBCz4xFSEzHGBE4L8e6px8XxZyGV/itxa4MRBiKN8lH91M6rfglnaldI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=WYLOKPLa; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="WYLOKPLa" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE1C41F00A2F; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 13:52:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791985967; bh=fG9/eyKPy40SDyhi1NG0w7HlNhFj+AsuLqMKvUUaVp0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=WYLOKPLa/MdYb05p7MIzhm8DPN1Fgwnkw40e7Vcv0XpzcecOvuBfoJmJJQaMhJfg+ IluyIEbgm0hyTOWoLGLroYLWssx0UA+mqbOiopN0itMoaqt7pS7O/fG29bxG2exo+N dgfeKQ7BhsBwwKtkwCcaUtdYNdcKED4O387x1vtSk2ctGUWbio1z6qtAjQqFvBnG+M miDmC6C4EDRXpdP6D8ChQ+HjjbZNdo6NXJJFPHlvRqJ6Xcw5wxBSSMJjSH7kXJbq3L ro2dwVTOErDsgzlI8Z3+W4BgotVk7LyxyyK4qGMdGES8mqrxODugGCb1QM1W3HW+B3 kyZN258MxGy3g== From: SJ Park To: Manuel Ebner Cc: SJ Park , Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , Lorenzo Stoakes , "Liam R. Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Randy Dunlap , damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/lru_sort: fix grammar and stlye Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 06:52:38 -0700 Message-ID: <20261014135239.3596-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 14:34:51 +0200 Manuel Ebner wrote: > Hi SJ, > > On Tue, 2026-10-13 at 17:32 -0700, SJ Park wrote: > > Hi Manuel, > > > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 21:13:27 +0200 Manuel Ebner wrote: > > > > > mention 'least-recently-used' AKA lru at the beginning > > > > I think the readers would know what LRU means, and therefore > > 'least-recently-used' is not needed. > > I'm probably one of the few that doesn't know. I didn't think of the whole picture. > You are right. Thank you for accepting my humble suggestion. [...] > > > @@ -17,7 +18,7 @@ systems, LRU lists are normally not proactively sorted but partially and > > > As page-granularity access checking overhead could be significant on huge > > Is this huge as in big or huge pages. For the latter I would put it: ``huge page``-systems > or `huge page`-systems. It is the former case. "huge" as in big. > > > > systems, LRU lists are normally not proactively sorted but partially and > > >  reactively sorted for special events including specific user requests, system > > >  calls and memory pressure.  As a result, LRU lists are sometimes not so > > >  perfectly prepared to be used as a trustworthy access pattern source for some > > > -situations including reclamation target pages selection under sudden memory > > > +situations including reclamation of target pages selection under sudden memory > > >  pressure. > > > > I cannot find what's wrong with the original sentence.  Could you expalin? > > Also, I think the updated sentence is rather easier to misread. > > It's two long sentences, thus (I think) hard to understand. I _rewrote_ it this way: > > As page-granularity access checking overhead could be significant on huge systems, > LRU lists are normally not fully nor proactively sorted but rather partially > and reactively sorted for special events. These events include specific user requests, > system calls and memory pressure. As a result, LRU lists are sometimes not > suitable to be used as a trustworthy access pattern source. These situations  > including reclamation target page selection under sudden memory pressure. I agree it is too long. I like your suggestion, thank you. Please ensure to put two spaces between sentences, though. The last sentence has only single space after its former sentence. [...] > > > -DAMON_LRU_SORT finds hot pages (pages of memory regions that showing access > > > +DAMON_LRU_SORT finds hot pages (pages of memory regions that show access > > >  rates that higher than a user-specified threshold) and cold pages (pages of > > > > rates that "are" higher? > ... that show access rates that are higher ... > and > > > > > > -memory regions that showing no access for a time that longer than a > > > +memory regions that show no access for a time that longer than a > > ... show no access for a duration that is longer than a > > Then ack. Looks good to me. Thank you for the nice suggestion. [...] > > > -Desired active to [in]active memory ratio in bp (1/10,000). > > > +Desired active to (in)active memory ratio in bp (1/10,000). > > > > I think use of brackets is also fine.  Let me know if I'm missing something. > > There is 2x (de)prioritization, 6x [de]prioritizations, 2x[in]active and a few more in the > file. They are all fine by themself, but not mixed. [] or ()? That makes sense. I agree consistency matters. Let's use (). Also please don't forget explaining the rationale of the change on the commit message. Thanks, SJ [...]