On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 19:10:03 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 4:00 PM SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 03 Jul 2024 16:18:42 -0600 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > The memory allocation profiling document was added to the bottom of the > > > > new outline. Apparently it was not decided by well-defined guidelines > > > > or a thorough discussions. Rather than that, it was added there just > > > > because there was no place for such unsorted documents. Now there is > > > > the chapter. Move the document to the new place. > > > > > > I'll take this for now, but it's truly sad to see new documentation > > > being added to the slushpile at the end. It seems better to create a > > > "development tools" section in the new outline and put the allocation > > > profiling document there? > > > > I have no strong opinions about that. Cc-ing Suren and Kent, as they are the > > author of the allocation profiling document and hence might have some opinion. > > IMHO if this would be the only document belonging to "development > tools" then keeping it under unsorted is fine. > If more documents will fall into that category then Jonathan's > suggestion makes sense to me. Looking at the current list, page_owner > and maybe damon might be considered for this category as well. > SeongJae, WDYT? I agree it makes more sense to have multiple documents under dedicated sections. And putting page_owner sounds not that odd to me. DAMON is, however, not a tool but a framework that helps easy development of access-aware kernel components. Such components could be development tools and system operations optimizations (using DAMOS). So, IMHO, 'development tools' section is not the perfect place for DAMON documents. Actually, even for allocation-profiling and page_owner, I think 'development tools' might not be a perfect category. I understand those as features that could be useful for system investigations of multiple purposes. So, in short, I think it is not easy to find a perfect cateogry... Thanks, SJ [...]
