On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:34 AM SeongJae Park <sjpark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [snip] > > Overall the patch looks good to me. Two concerns I have are if we > > should damon_callback here or with the real user and the regions part > > of primitive abstraction. For the first one, I don't have any strong > > opinion but for the second one I do. > > I'd like to keep 'damon_callback' part here, to let API users know how the > monitoring result will be available to them. > > For the 'regions' part, I will rename relevant things as below in the next > version, to reduce any confusion. > > init_target_regions() -> init() > update_target_regions() -> update() > regions_update_interval -> update_interval > last_regions_update -> last_update > > > > > More specifically the question is if sampling and adaptive region > > adjustment are general enough to be part of core monitoring context? > > Can you give an example of a different primitive/use-case where these > > would be beneficial. > > I think all adress spaces having some spatial locality and monitoring requests > that need to have upper-bound overhead and best-effort accuracy could get > benefit from it. The primitives targetting 'virtual address spaces' and the > 'physical address space' clearly showed the benefit. I am still not much convinced on the 'physical address space' use-case or the way you are presenting it. Anyways I think we start with what you have and if in future there is a use-case where regions adjustment does not make sense, we can change it then.
