From: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
To: JaeJoon Jung <rgbi3307@gmail.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>, damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/damon: modified damon_call_control from static to kmalloc
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 22:04:12 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251211060413.60534-1-sj@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHOvCC6bJLf=LuBpm90n5poz8Sqhz9wjXtk5ypbPwkvhb1ptag@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:29:59 +0900 JaeJoon Jung <rgbi3307@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 at 11:54, SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:20:42 +0900 JaeJoon Jung <rgbi3307@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> I suggested removing the dealloc_on_cancel condition from the patch.
> When using the damon_call_control structure, if you only use kmalloc()/kfree()
> when canceled without dealloc_on_cancel. However, currently, in other modules,
> since it is static struct damon_call_control { ... }, kfree() is not allowed,
> so dealloc_on_cancel condition is additionally required.
> Because kmalloc()/kfree() and static are mixed together,
> dealloc_on_cancel condition is required.
> As you pointed out in the previous email, kmalloc()/kfree() has the burden of
> memory allocation and deallocation, and static has the disadvantage of
> increasing
> the code size. Both have their pros and cons.
> Among these, I proposed unifying them into kmalloc()/kfree() methods and
> removing the dealloc_on_cancel
Thank you for kindly clarifying this, JeaJoon!
>
> >
> > Meanwhile I find the feature might look complicated, or not well documented.
> > Specifically, dealloc_on_cancel should be set on only dynamic-allocated
> > damon_call_control object, but that is not well documented on the kernel-doc
> > comments. Are you saying removing it is an advantage because it makes reading
> > code easier? If that's the case, how about improving the documentation?
> >
>
> dealloc_on_cancel is only used in mm/damon/sysfs.c. Here, since kmalloc
> the damon_call_control structure, the dealloc_on_cancel=true condition is
> required. If you want to keep the current code as is and only change the
> comment, it would be clearer to comment it out like this:
>
> De-allocate when canceled.
> --> To perform kfree() if allocated with kmalloc() when canceled.
Sounds good. Would you mind sending a patch for that?
Thanks,
SJ
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-11 6:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-06 22:47 JaeJoon Jung
2025-12-07 2:36 ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-09 12:20 ` JaeJoon Jung
2025-12-10 2:54 ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-11 3:29 ` JaeJoon Jung
2025-12-11 6:04 ` SeongJae Park [this message]
2025-12-11 7:38 ` JaeJoon Jung
2025-12-11 7:54 ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-11 8:13 ` JaeJoon Jung
2025-12-12 3:46 ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-12 7:30 ` JaeJoon Jung
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=20251211060413.60534-1-sj@kernel.org \
--to=sj@kernel.org \
--cc=damon@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rgbi3307@gmail.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