Re: [RFC PATCH] Docs/mm/damon/design: clarify when qt_exceeds increases

[SJ Park]

On Wed,  9 Sep 2026 18:07:33 +0800 Liew Rui Yan <aethernet65535@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Sep 2026 17:38:00 -0700 SJ Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Liew,
> > 
> > On Wed,  9 Sep 2026 01:50:23 +0800 Liew Rui Yan <aethernet65535@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > > By the way, I found a thing in the design document that confused me.
> > > 
> > >     temporal: More straightforward algorithm. Tries to achieve the goal
> > >     as fast as possible, using maximum allowed quota, but only for a
> > >     temporal short time. ---> When the quota is under-achieved, this
> > >     algorithm keeps tuning quota to a maximum allowed one. Once the
> > >     quota is [over]-achieved <---, this sets the quota zero. Useful for
> > >     deterministic control required environments.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure if "goal" was accidentally written as "quota" here.  Would
> > > this be better?
> > > 
> > >     When the goal is under-achieved, this algorithm keeps tuning quota
> > >     to a maximum allowed one. Once the goal is [over-]achieved, [...]
> > 
> > Good eyes!  Yes, seems it was only mistakenly written in the way.  Please feel
> > free to send a separate patch or include it into the next version of this
> > patch, whatever better for you.
> 
> I will send a separate patch.

Makes sense to me.

[...]
> > I think the clarification is better to be added to the 'temporal' quota tuner,
> > since this happens only when it is used.  Maybe the clarification could also be
> > shorter.  For example,
[...]
> I agree that would be better.  Although users might look up the
> definition of qt_exceeds first, they are also likely to navigate
> directly to the temporal section.
> 
> I will clarify at the temporal section in the next revision.

Thank you.  Looking forward to patches.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]