On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:02:38 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2023/5/27 9:46, SeongJae Park wrote: > > Hi Kefeng, > > > > On Sat, 27 May 2023 09:15:01 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [...] > >>> > >>> Nice and effective fix! Nevertheless, I think aggregation interval smaller > >>> than sample interval is just a wrong input. How about adding the check in > >>> damon_set_attrs()'s already existing attributes validation, like below? > >> > >> Yes, move the check into damon_set_attrs() is better > > > > Thank you for this kind comment! > > > >> , and it seems that > >> we could move all the check into it, and drop the old_attrs check in > >> damon_update_monitoring_results(), what's you option? > >> > >> > >> diff --git a/mm/damon/core.c b/mm/damon/core.c > >> index d9ef62047bf5..1647f7f1f708 100644 > >> --- a/mm/damon/core.c > >> +++ b/mm/damon/core.c > >> @@ -523,12 +523,6 @@ static void damon_update_monitoring_results(struct > >> damon_ctx *ctx, > >> struct damon_target *t; > >> struct damon_region *r; > >> > >> - /* if any interval is zero, simply forgive conversion */ > >> - if (!old_attrs->sample_interval || !old_attrs->aggr_interval || > >> - !new_attrs->sample_interval || > >> - !new_attrs->aggr_interval) > >> - return; > >> - > >> damon_for_each_target(t, ctx) > >> damon_for_each_region(r, t) > >> damon_update_monitoring_result( > >> @@ -551,6 +545,10 @@ int damon_set_attrs(struct damon_ctx *ctx, struct > >> damon_attrs *attrs) > >> return -EINVAL; > >> if (attrs->min_nr_regions > attrs->max_nr_regions) > >> return -EINVAL; > >> + if (attrs->sample_interval > attrs->aggr_interval) > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + if (!attrs->sample_interval || !attrs->aggr_interval) > >> + return -EINVAL; > > > > In my humble opinion, the validation for monitoring results and for general > > monitoring could be different. For example, zero aggreation/sampling intervals > > might make sense for fixed granularity working set size monitoring. Hence, I'd > > prefer keeping those checks in the damon_update_monitoring_results(). > > > ok, will keep that, Thank you for agreeing. > I check the damon_set_attrs() called by > lru_sort/reclaim monitor and sysfs/dbgfs, the above changes should be > ok, maybe missing something, the working set size monitoring is not > public for now? You're correct. Working set size monitoring is not somewhat currently publicly exists, but only possible usage of DAMON at the moment. Thanks, SJ [...]
