Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim: rewrite complex parts

[Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@mailbox.org>]

Hi SJ,

On Tue, 2026-10-27 at 17:19 -0700, SJ Park wrote:
> Hello Manuel,
> 
> 
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 22:23:46 +0100 Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@mailbox.org> wrote:
> 
> > Rewrite complex sentences.
> 
> Any special reason to keep this as a separated one?  I think it is ok to merge
> this into the first patch.

In this mail ( https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261016142921.126622-1-sj@kernel.org/ )
> Let's do such rewriting with another patch.

I understood this as 'make it two patches'.

> > Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@mailbox.org>
> > Suggested-by: Aveline Noir <jm5905938@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Two more minor changes
> > @ 31
> > /s/attempts to pages out those/attempts to page out those/
> > @ 126
> > + 'is' to fix grammar
> > 
> >  .../admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim.rst          | 19 ++++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim.rst
> > index 0bab2299ea..033686f410 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim.rst
> > @@ -30,12 +30,13 @@ guests could mitigate this problem.
> >  How It Works?
> >  =============
> >  
> > -DAMON_RECLAIM finds memory regions that weren't accessed for specific time
> > -duration and page out.  To avoid it consuming too much CPU for the paging out
> > -operation, a speed limit can be configured.  Under the speed limit, it pages
> > -out memory regions that weren't accessed longer time first.  System
> > -administrators can also configure under what situation this scheme should
> > -automatically be activated and deactivated with three memory pressure watermarks.
> > +DAMON_RECLAIM identifies memory regions that have not been accessed for a
> > +specified period and attempts to page out those.  To avoid it consuming
> > +too much CPU for the paging out operation, a speed limit can be configured.
> > +Within the configured speed limit, it prioritizes regions that have been
> > +idle longer for reclamation.  System administrators can also configure under
> > +what situation this scheme should automatically be activated and deactivated
> > +with three memory pressure watermarks.
> >  
> >  Interface: Module Parameters
> >  ============================
> > @@ -125,8 +126,8 @@ quota_reset_interval_ms
> >  
> >  The time/size quota charge reset interval in milliseconds.
> >  
> > -The charge reset interval for the quota of time (quota_ms) and size
> > -(quota_sz).  That is, DAMON_RECLAIM does not try reclamation for more than
> > +The charge reset interval for the quota of time is quota_ms and for the quota of
> > +size is quota_sz.  That is, DAMON_RECLAIM does not try reclamation for more than
> >  quota_ms milliseconds or quota_sz bytes within quota_reset_interval_ms
> >  milliseconds.
> 
> I think the original sentence was not that confusing.  Also, this changes the
> nuance of the sentence?  What the sentence is saying is
> "quota_reset_interval_ms is the charge reset interval for ...".  If this was
> really confusing, maybe we can add "quota_reset_interval_ms is " part.
> 
> But, I start feeling we might trying too much polishing...?

I think the verb is missing or can you tell which the verb is? If you can
no fix is required.

> 
> >  
> > @@ -137,7 +138,7 @@ quota_mem_pressure_us
> >  
> >  Desired level of memory pressure-stall time in microseconds.
> >  
> > -While keeping the caps that are set by other quotas, DAMON_RECLAIM automatically
> > +While respecting the limits imposed by other quotas, DAMON_RECLAIM automatically
> >  increases and decreases the effective level of the quota aiming this level of
> >  memory pressure is incurred.  System-wide ``some`` memory PSI in microseconds
> >  per quota reset interval (``quota_reset_interval_ms``) is collected and
> 
> I'm not sure if the original sentence was really difficult to understand.
> 
> I'd prefer dropping this change.

That's ok.

Will you handle the final edit or should I send a [v3]?

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