Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/damon/core: cover discrete System RAM areas with per-range regions

On 7/28/26 10:30 PM, SJ Park wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 18:06:48 +0800 Jiayuan Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/26 10:26 PM, SJ Park wrote:
>>> Hello Jiayuan,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 17:54:22 +0800 Jiayuan Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Jiayuan Chen <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> damon_set_region_system_rams_default(), introduced by commit 70d8797c15d6
>>>> ("mm/damon: introduce damon_set_region_system_rams_default()"), is used by
>>>> DAMON_RECLAIM, DAMON_LRU_SORT and DAMON_STAT to set the default monitoring
>>>> target address range covering all 'System RAM' when the user does not
>>>> specify a range.  It walks the 'System RAM' resources but keeps only the
>>>> start of the first resource and the end of the last one, and then sets a
>>>> single monitoring region spanning that whole [first_start, last_end] range.
>>>>
>>>> On systems whose RAM is split into discrete areas that are far apart in the
>>>> physical address space, that single region also covers the holes between
>>>> them.  For example:
>>>>
>>>>     $ sudo cat /proc/iomem | grep RAM
>>>>     00001000-0009ffff : System RAM
>>>>     00100000-4848c017 : System RAM
>>>>     4848c018-48550c57 : System RAM
>>>>     48550c58-48551017 : System RAM
>>>>     48551018-48615c57 : System RAM
>>>>     48615c58-48616017 : System RAM
>>>>     48616018-486dac57 : System RAM
>>>>     486dac58-4e563017 : System RAM
>>>>     4e563018-4e627c57 : System RAM
>>>>     4e627c58-4ef39017 : System RAM
>>>>     4ef39018-4ef3f057 : System RAM
>>>>     4ef3f058-4efe6017 : System RAM
>>>>     4efe6018-4efec057 : System RAM
>>>>     4efec058-50247fff : System RAM
>>>>     50317000-56720fff : System RAM
>>>>     56722000-59c19fff : System RAM
>>>>     6bbfe000-6bbfefff : System RAM
>>>>     6bc00000-777fffff : System RAM
>>>>     100000000-1007effffff : System RAM
>>>>     67e80000000-77e7fffffff : System RAM
>>>>
>>>> Here the last two areas (about 1TB starting at 4GiB, and about 1.1TB
>>>> starting at ~6.5TB) are separated by a ~5.5TB hole, and the single-region
>>>> setup makes DAMON treat that entire hole as if it were memory.
>>>>
>>>> This is harmful in a few ways.  The monitoring target regions are limited
>>>> by max_nr_regions, so regions that fall into the hole waste that budget and
>>>> leave fewer regions for the real RAM, coarsening the adaptive regions and
>>>> degrading the monitoring accuracy.
>>> The hole would look like not accessed.  As a result, the whole region will be a
>>> few regions that very cold.  That wouldn't waste the budget that much.  Do you
>>> have some specific setups that this cannot help?
>> It's my mistake.
>>
>> I first saw the kdamond CPU go up, and I assumed it was the number of
>> regions. I was wrong.
>>
>> I re-tested and profiled it with perf. It's not the region count — it's
>> the page-by-page walk of the hole.
>>
>> On a VM with a 116GiB hole and a single [first,last] span, I enabled
>> DAMON_LRU_SORT and ran perf on its kdamond:
>>     30.15%  damon_get_folio
>>     17.09%  pfn_to_online_page
>>      2.24%  __nr_to_section
>>      ...
>>      0.07%  damon_split_region_at
>>      0.06%  damon_merge_two_regions
>>
>> Almost all of it is the per-page folio lookup. Merge and split are ~0.1%.
>> The cold scheme targets cold, old regions. The hole is never accessed, so
>> it's always cold and old, and it matches. Then the action walks its whole
>> empty span page by page, every apply. RECLAIM and LRU_SORT do this by
>> default. It scales with the hole size, so on the real 5.5TiB machine the
>> kdamond can't keep up.
> Makes sense, thank you for investigating and sharing this!
>
>>
>>>> In addition, DAMOS actions on the paddr
>>>> operations set walk such a region page by page, so a region that covers the
>>>> hole is walked for its entire (empty) span on every application.
>>> That makes sense.
>>>
>>>> Set a separate monitoring region for each discrete System RAM area instead,
>>>> coalescing only truly adjacent (no gap in between) resources into one
>>>> range, so holes between the areas are excluded.  The reported *start and
>>>> *end still carry the overall first-start and last-end, so the user-visible
>>>> default range reported via the module parameters is unchanged.
>>> I'm concerned if this could result in having too many regions.  The gap between
>> On the region count: can't we just coalesce any hole smaller than
>> min_region_sz?
> I'm not fully understanding your point.  min_region_sz is only 4 KiB by
> default, and anyway DAMON cannot create regions of size smaller than
> min_region_sz.  I cannot get how this helps.
>
>> After that, the number of ranges is just the number of
>> discrete
>> System RAM areas
> I'm still not convinced with this.  What if the number of discrete system ram
> areas is larger than max_nr_regions?
>
> Actually I was also thinking about this problem for in the past.  One of my
> idea at that time was, handle only a few largest holes that practically being
> problems.  That is, while reading the system ram layout, find the holes, sort
> those by size, and do make holes in DAMON regions layout for the biggest N
> (say, 2) holes.  This may handle most cases including your 5 TiB hole.
> Actually vaddr is doing this, so we may be able to reuse some of the code.
>
> If it makes sense to you, I will try to implement this.

One worry with a fixed N is that it's a magic number. If a machine has more
than N big holes (more sockets / NUMA nodes, or several CXL devices), the
extra ones are silently not excluded and get walked again.

And making N configurable just moves the per-machine tuning back to the
user, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

vaddr over-includes the gaps into its regions too, but it can skip them
cheaply: it walks the VMA tree (find_vma / maple tree), it's cheap.
paddr has no such structure, so an included hole is walked in full.

That's why a fixed N is safe for vaddr but risky for paddr.


>>> user-visible parameters and internal state is also a concern.
>>
>> I think monitor_region_start/end is meant to expose the overall range, and
>> skipping the holes inside it is an implementation detail. Even if we didn't
>> skip them, the adaptive region count is never 1 anyway — DAMON already
>> splits [first,last] into many regions. The holes just add a few more, so
>> the param never matched the internal state exactly to begin with.
> It is arguable, but I believe this also makes sense in my opinion.
>
>>
>>> A quick workaround would be adjusting the memory layout in BIOS, using DAMON
>>> sysfs interface instead, or setting the monitor_region_{start,end} to cover
>>> only the single area.  Have you considered such workarounds?
>>>
>>> Let's complete this high level discussion first.
>>
>> Right, this is doable today — the DAMON sysfs interface can set multiple
>>
>> regions manually. This patch is only about convenience.
> Are you actually running DAMON_LRU_SORT or DAMON_RECLAIM in a production system
> having 5 TiB hole?  Or, planning to do?  If the above idea makes sense to you,
> I could prioritize implementation of it depending on this.


I'm not actually running DAMON_LRU_SORT or DAMON_RECLAIM on such a machine.
I ran into this while working on per-cgroup hot/cold page tracking, where I
was comparing performance and accuracy across setups — that's where these
numbers came from.


>
> Thanks,
> SJ
>
> [...]



And to be clear, I'm not trying to land a patch here — I just noticed this
as a possible optimization. If you have a better idea, I'm happy to go with
it :).