From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@xxxxxxxxx> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 17:03:44 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 08:36:43 +0000 SeongJae Park <sj38.park@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > DAMON does not expose stable APIs at the moment, so these can > > > be changed later if needed. I think it is ok to merge DAMON for some > > > exposure. However I do want to make this clear that the solution space > > > is not complete. The solution of system level monitoring is still > > > needed which can be a future extension to DAMON or more generalized > > > Multigen LRU. > > > > Agreed. We have lots more works to do. Some of those are already posted as > > RFC patchsets[1,2,3,4]. I promise I will happily do the works. But, how dare > > could only I get all the fun? I'd like to do that together with others in this > > great community. One major purpose of this patchset is thus providing a > > flexible framework for such collaboration. The virtual address space > > monitoring, which this patchset provides in addition to the framework, is also > > for real-world usages, though. > > > > Now all the patches have at least one 'Reviewed-by:' or 'Acked-by:' tags. We > > didn't find serious problems since v26[5], which was posted about four months > > ago. so I'm thinking this patchset has passed the minimum qualification. If > > you think there are more things to be done before this patchset is merged in > > the -mm tree or mainline, please let me know. If not, Andrew, I'd like you to > > consider merging this patchset into '-mm' tree. > > Shall take a look. With some trepidation. > > 1-2 years from now someone will pop up with a massive patchset > implementing some monitoring scheme and we'll say "why didn't you use > DAMON" and they'll say "it's unsuitable for <reasons>". Agreed. And I personally believe merging this in will help avoiding such situation, because the someone will be able to easily find the developer who is responsible to convince the person. I will happily and definitely do my best for that. > > I would like to see more thought/design go into how DAMON could be > modified to address Shakeel's other three requirements. At least to > the point where we can confidently say "yes, we will be able to do > this". Are you able to drive this discussion along please? Sure. I will describe my plan for convincing Shakeel's usages in detail as a reply to this mail. Thanks, SeongJae Park
