Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-176966-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
Cc: Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@sk.com>,
	damon@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-mm@kvack.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	apopple@nvidia.com,
	baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com,
	dave.jiang@intel.com,
	hyeongtak.ji@sk.com,
	kernel_team@skhynix.com,
	linmiaohe@huawei.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
	mhiramat@kernel.org,
	rakie.kim@sk.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org,
	surenb@google.com,
	yangx.jy@fujitsu.com,
	ying.huang@intel.com,
	ziy@nvidia.com,
	42.hyeyoo@gmail.com,
	art.jeongseob@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/7] mm/damon/paddr: refactor DAMOS_PAGEOUT with migration_mode
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 11:00:44 -0700
Message-Id: <20240512180044.76086-1-sj@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240511201617.292811-1-sj@kernel.org>
References: 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Sat, 11 May 2024 13:16:17 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Fri,  5 Apr 2024 12:19:07 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri,  5 Apr 2024 15:08:50 +0900 Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@sk.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > This is a preparation patch that introduces migration modes.
> > > 
> > > The damon_pa_pageout is renamed to damon_pa_migrate and it receives an
> > > extra argument for migration_mode.
> > 
> > I personally think keeping damon_pa_pageout() as is and adding a new function
> > (damon_pa_migrate()) with some duplicated code is also ok, but this approach
> > also looks fine to me.  So I have no strong opinion here, but just letting you
> > know I would have no objection at both approaches.
> 
> Meanwhile, we added one more logic in damon_pa_pageout() for doing page
> idleness double check on its own[1].  It makes reusing damon_pa_pageout() for
> multiple reason a bit complex.  I think the complexity added a problem in this
> patch that I also missed before due to the complexity.  Show below comment in
> line.  Hence now I think it would be better to do the suggested way.
> 
> If we use the approach, this patch is no more necessary, and therefore can be
> dropped.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/20240426195247.100306-1-sj@kernel.org

I updated this patchset to address comments on this thread, and posted it as
RFC patchset v4 on behalf of Honggyu under his approval:
https://lore.kernel.org/20240512175447.75943-1-sj@kernel.org


Thanks,
SJ

[...]