From: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
To: Ze Zuo <zuoze1@huawei.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, damon@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/damon: add full LPAE support for memory monitoring above 4GB
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:50:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250409025036.70633-1-sj@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250408075553.959388-1-zuoze1@huawei.com>
Hi Ze,
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:55:53 +0800 Ze Zuo <zuoze1@huawei.com> wrote:
> Previously, DAMON's physical address space monitoring only supported
> memory ranges below 4GB on LPAE-enabled systems. This was due to
> the use of 'unsigned long' in 'struct damon_addr_range', which is
> 32-bit on ARM32 even with LPAE enabled.
Nice finding!
>
> This patch modifies the data types to properly support >4GB physical
> address spaces:
> 1. Changes 'start' and 'end' in 'struct damon_addr_range' from
> 'unsigned long' to 'unsigned long long' (u64)
> 2. Updates all related arithmetic operations and comparisons
> 3. Adjusts print formats from %lu to %llu where needed
> 4. Maintains backward compatibility for non-LPAE systems
>
> Since the overhead of always using u64 is negligible on 32-bit systems,
> should we prefer this simplified approach over the conditional typedef?
>
> Alternative implementation approaches to consider:
>
> 1. Introduce damon_addr_t that adapts to CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> 2. Convert all DAMON address operations to use this type
>
> Just like implementation:
> #ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> typedef unsigned long long damon_addr_t;
> #else
> typedef unsigned long damon_addr_t;
> #endif
>
> This method could potentially cause minor issues with print formatting
> and division operations. We'd appreciate any suggestions for better
> approaches. Thank you for your input.
>
> The patch change allows DAMON to work with:
> - 32-bit ARM with LPAE (40-bit physical addresses)
> - 64-bit ARM systems
> - x86_64 physical address monitoring
> while preserving existing behavior on 32-bit systems without LPAE.
Again, nice finding and good improvement. Thank you so much for sharing this
nice patch.
But, this doesn't seem like a very small and simple change. I think we can
find the best approach together, by understanding impact of this change for
short term and long term. For that, could you please also share how prevalent
32-bit ARM machines with LPAE are, and what would be your expected usage of
physical address space monitoring on such machines, in both short term and long
term?
Thanks,
SJ
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-09 2:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-08 7:55 Ze Zuo
2025-04-09 2:50 ` SeongJae Park [this message]
2025-04-09 7:01 ` zuoze
2025-04-09 17:36 ` SeongJae Park
2025-04-10 6:28 ` zuoze
2025-04-10 22:25 ` SeongJae Park
2025-04-11 6:30 ` zuoze
2025-04-11 16:35 ` SeongJae Park
2025-04-14 1:21 ` zuoze
2025-04-20 16:27 ` SeongJae Park
2025-04-22 11:50 ` zuoze
2025-04-22 17:43 ` SeongJae Park
2025-07-25 3:15 ` zuoze
2025-07-25 20:22 ` SeongJae Park
2025-07-26 3:14 ` Quanmin Yan
2025-07-26 17:16 ` SeongJae Park
2025-07-29 13:52 ` Quanmin Yan
2025-07-29 15:53 ` SeongJae Park
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250409025036.70633-1-sj@kernel.org \
--to=sj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=damon@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=zuoze1@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox