Hi SeongJae, On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:56:19 -0700 SeongJae Park <s...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hi Honggyu, > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:07:48 +0900 Honggyu Kim <honggyu....@sk.com> wrote: > > > Hi SeongJae, > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:07:21 -0700 SeongJae Park <s...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 22:27:45 +0900 Honggyu Kim <honggyu....@sk.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi SeongJae, > > > > > > > > On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:31:44 -0700 SeongJae Park <s...@kernel.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Honggyu, > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:36:29 +0900 Honggyu Kim <honggyu....@sk.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi SeongJae, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the confirmation. I have a few comments on young filter > > > > > > so > > > > > > please read the inline comments again. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2024 08:53:00 -0800 SeongJae Park <s...@kernel.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Honggyu, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: SeongJae Park <s...@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 3:33 AM > > > > > > > > > To: Honggyu Kim <honggyu....@sk.com> > > > > > > > > > Cc: SeongJae Park <s...@kernel.org>; kernel_team > > > > > > > > > <kernel_t...@skhynix.com> > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] DAMON based 2-tier memory > > > > > > > > > management for CXL memory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Honggyu, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:51:12 +0000 "honggyu....@sk.com" > > > > > > > > > <honggyu....@sk.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi SeongJae, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've tested it again and found that "young" filter has to > > > > > > > > > > be set > > > > > > > > > > differently as follows. > > > > > > > > > > - demote action: set "young" filter with "matching" true > > > > > > > > > > - promote action: set "young" filter with "matching" false > > > > > > > > Thinking it again, I feel like "matching" true or false looks quite > > > > vague to me as a general user. > > > > > > > > Instead, I would like to have more meaningful names for "matching" as > > > > follows. > > > > > > > > - matching "true" can be either (filter) "out" or "skip". > > > > - matching "false" can be either (filter) "in" or "apply". > > > > > > I agree the naming could be done much better. And thank you for the nice > > > suggestions. I have a few concerns, though. > > > > I don't think my suggestion is best. I just would like to have more > > discussion about it. > > I also understand my naming sense is far from good :) I'm grateful to have > this constructive discussion!
Yeah, naming is always difficult. Thanks anyway :) > > > > > Firstly, increasing the number of behavioral concepts. DAMOS filter > > > feature > > > has only single behavior: excluding some types of memory from DAMOS action > > > target. The "matching" is to provide a flexible way for further > > > specifying the > > > target to exclude in a bit detail. Without it, we would need non-variant > > > for > > > each filter type. Comapred to the current terms, the new terms feel like > > > implying there are two types of behaviors. I think one behavior is > > > easier to > > > understand than two behaviors, and better match what internal code is > > > doing. > > > > > > Secondly, ambiguity in "in" and "apply". To me, the terms sound like > > > _adding_ > > > something more than _excluding_. > > > > I understood that young filter "matching" "false" means apply action > > only to young pages. Do I misunderstood something here? If not, > > Technically speaking, having a DAMOS filter with 'matching' parameter as > 'false' for 'young pages' type means you want DAMOS to "exclude pages that not > young from the scheme's action target". That's the only thing it truly does, > and what it tries to guarantee. Whether the action will be applied to young > pages or not depends on more factors including additional filters and DAMOS > parameter. IOW, that's not what the simple setting promises. > > Of course, I know you are assuming there is only the single filter. Hence, > effectively you're correct. And the sentence may be a better wording for end > users. However, it tooke me a bit time to understand your assumption and > concluding whether your sentence is correct or not, since I had to think about > the assumptions. > > I'd say this also reminds me the first concern that I raised on the previous > mail. IOW, I feel this sentence is introducing one more behavior and making > it > bit taking longer time to digest, for developers who should judge it based on > the source code. I'd suggest use only one behavioral term, "exclude", since > it > is what the code really does, unless it is wording for end users. Okay, I will just think filter "exclude" something. > > "apply" means _adding_ or _including_ only the matched pages for action. > > It looks like you thought about _excluding_ non matched pages here. > > Yes. I'd prefer using only single term, _excluding_. It fits with the code, > and require one word less that "adding" or "including", since "adding" or > "including" require one more word, "only". > > Also, even with "only", the fact that there could be more filters makes me > unsure what is the consequence of having it. That is, if we have a filter > that > includes only pages of type A, but if there could be yet another filter that > includes only pages of type B, would the consequence is the action being > applied to pages of type A and B? Or, type A or type B? > > In my opinion, exclusion based approach is simpler for understanding the > consequence of such combinational usage. > > > > > > I think that might confuse people in some > > > cases. Actually, I have used the term "filter-out" and "filter-in" on > > > this and several threads. When saying about "filter-in" scenario, I had > > > to > > > emphasize the fact that it is not adding something but excluding others. > > > > Excluding others also means including matched pages. I think we better > > focus on what to do only for the matched pages. > > I agree that is true for the end-users in many cases. But I think that > depends > on the case, and at least this specific case (kernel ABI level discussion > about > DAMOS filters), I don't really feel that's better. OK. It could be a matter of preference and the current filter is already in the mainline so I won't insist more. > > > > > I now think that was not a good approach. > > > > > > Finally, "apply" sounds a bit deterministic. I think it could be a bit > > > confusing in some cases such as when using multiple filters in a combined > > > way. > > > For example, if we have two filters for 1) "apply" a memcg and 2) skip > > > anon > > > pages, the given DAMOS action will not be applied to anon pages of the > > > memcg. > > > I think this might be a bit confusing. > > > > No objection on this. If so, I think "in" sounds better than "apply". > > Thanks for understanding. I think allowlists or denylists might also been > better names. "allow" and "deny" sound good to me as well. We don't have to change it though. > > > > > > > > > > Internally, the type of "matching" can be boolean, but it'd be better > > > > for general users have another ways to set it such as "out"/"in" or > > > > "skip"/"apply" via sysfs interface. I prefer "skip" and "apply" looks > > > > more intuitive, but I don't have strong objection on "out" and "in" as > > > > well. > > > > > > Unfortunately, DAMON sysfs interface is an ABI that we want to keep > > > stable. Of > > > course we could make some changes on it if really required. But I'm > > > unsure if > > > the problem of current naming and benefit of the sugegsted change are big > > > enough to outweighs the stability risk and additional efforts. > > > > I don't ask to change the interface, but just provide another way for > > the setting. For example, the current "matching" accepts either 1, > > true, or Y but internally keeps as "true" as a boolean type. > > > > $ cd /sys/kernel/mm/damon/admin/kdamonds/0/contexts/0/schemes/0/filters/0 > > > > $ echo 1 | tee matching && cat matching > > 1 > > Y > > > > $ echo true | tee matching && cat matching > > true > > Y > > > > $ echo Y | tee matching && cat matching > > Y > > Y > > > > I'm asking if it's okay making "matching" receive "out" or "skip" as > > follows. > > > > $ echo out | tee matching && cat matching > > out > > Y > > > > $ echo skip | tee matching && cat matching > > skip > > Y > > I have no strong concern about this. But also not seeing significant benefit > of this change. This will definitely not regress user experience. But it > will > require introducing more kernel code, though the amount will be fairly small. > And this new interface will be something that we need to keep maintain, so > adding a tiny bit of maintenance burden. I'd prefer improving the documents > or > user-space tool and keep the kernel code simple. OK. I will see if there is a way to improve damo tool for this instead of making changes on the kernel side. > IMHO, end users shouldn't deal directly with DAMOS filters at all, and kernel > ABI document should be clear enough to avoid confusion. But, if someone uses > kernel ABI on production without reading the document, I'd say it might better > to crash or OOPS to give clear warning and lessons. > > > > > > Also, DAMON sysfs interface is arguably not for _very_ general users. > > > DAMON > > > user-space tool is the one for _more_ general users. To quote DAMON usage > > > document, > > > > > > - *DAMON user space tool.* > > > `This <https://github.com/awslabs/damo>`_ is for privileged people > > > such as > > > system administrators who want a just-working human-friendly > > > interface. > > > [...] > > > - *sysfs interface.* > > > :ref:`This <sysfs_interface>` is for privileged user space > > > programmers who > > > want more optimized use of DAMON. [...] > > > > > > If the concept is that confused, I think we could improve the > > > documentation, or > > > the user space tool. But for DAMON sysfs interface, I think we need more > > > discussions for getting clear pros/cons that justifies the risk and the > > > effort. > > > > If my suggestion is not what you want in sysfs interface, then "damo" > > can receive these more meaningful names and translate to "true" or > > "false" when writing to sysfs. > > Yes, I agree. We could further hide filter concept at all. For example, we > could let damo user call "migrate" DAMOS action plus "non-young" filter as > "promote" action. Or, have a dedicated command for tiered-memory management. > Similar to the gen_config.py of HMSDK > (https://github.com/skhynix/hmsdk/blob/main/tools/gen_config.py). But this > would be something to further discuss on different threads. Yeah, I made this thread too much about filter naming discussion rather than tiered memory support. > > > > > > > > > > I also feel the filter name "young" is more for developers not for > > > > general users. I think this can be changed to "accessed" filter > > > > instead. > > > > > > In my humble opinion, "accessed" might be confusing with the term that > > > being > > > used by DAMON, specifically, the concept of "nr_accesses". I also thought > > > about using more specific term such as "pg-accessed" or something else, > > > but I > > > felt it is still unclear or making it too verbose. > > > > > > I agree "young" sounds more for developers. But, again, DAMON sysfs is > > > for not > > > _very_ general users. > > > > I worried the developer term is also going to be used for "damo" user > > space tool as "young" filter. But if you think it's good enough, then I > > will follow the decision as I also think "accessed" is not the best term > > for this. > > The line is not very clear, but I think the line for "damo" should be > different > from that for DAMON sysfs interface. > > [...] > > > > > > > > > DAMOS filter is basically for filtering "out" memory regions > > > > > > > > > that matches to > > > > > > > > > the condition. > > > > > > > > Right. In other tools, I see filters are more used as filtering "in" > > > > rather than filtering "out". I feel this makes me more confused. > > > > > > I understand that the word, "filtering", can be used for both, and > > > therefore > > > can be confused. I was also spending no small times at naming since I was > > > thinking about both coffee filters and color filters (of photoshop or > > > glasses). > > > But it turned out that I'm more familiar with coffee filters, and might > > > be same > > > for DAMON community, since the community is having beer/coffee/tea chat > > > series > > > ;) (https://lore.kernel.org/damon/20220810225102.124459-1...@kernel.org/) > > > > Yeah, I thought about filter for including pages for given config as > > follows. > > > > \ / > > \ / only matched items pass this filter. > > || > > > > But the current DAMOS filter is about excluding pages for given config > > as follows just like a strainer. > > ___ > > /###\ > > |#####| matched items are excluded via this filter. > > \###/ > > --- > > > > I think I won't get confused after keeping this difference in mind. > > My mind model was describing it as "excluding" coffee beans, but I'd say these > are just different perspectives, not a thing about right or wrong. I'm > grateful to learn one more perspective that is different from mine :) I'm more familiar with the filter in ftrace, which is set to /sys/kernel/tracing/set_ftrace_filter and it means "including" something. But I will keep thinking DAMOS filter is different. > > > > > That said, I think we may be able to make this better documented, or add a > > > layer of abstraction on DAMON user-space tool. > > > > [...] > > > To summarize my opinion again, > > > > > > 1. I agree the concept and names of DAMOS filters are confusing and not > > > very > > > intuitive. > > > 2. However, it's unclear if the problem and the benefit from the > > > suggested new > > > names are huge enough to take the risk and effort on changing ABI. > > > 3. We could improve documentation and/or user-space tool. > > > > I think improving "damo" can be a good solution. > > Looking forward to the discussion on it! :) > > > > > > Thank you again for the suggestion and confirmations to my questions. > > > > Likewise, thank you for the explanation in details. > > My great pleasure, and thank you for patiently keeping this grateful > discussion! Thanks again for your feedback. Honggyu > Thanks, > SJ > > [...]
