Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/lru_sort.rst | 4 ++++ Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim.rst | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
Writing 'Y' to the commit_inputs parameter of DAMON_RECLAIM and
DAMON_LRU_SORT, and writing other parameters before the commit_inputs
request is completely processed can cause race conditions. While the
consequence can be bad, the documentation is not clearly describing
that. Add clear warnings.
The issue was discovered [1,2] by sashiko.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/20260319161620.189392-3-objecting@objecting.org
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/20260319161620.189392-2-objecting@objecting.org
Changes from RFC
(https://lore.kernel.org/20260328172415.49940-1-sj@kernel.org)
- Wordsmith.
- Rebase to latest mm-new.
SeongJae Park (2):
Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim: warn commit_inputs vs param updates
race
Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/lru_sort: warn commit_inputs vs param
updates race
Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/lru_sort.rst | 4 ++++
Documentation/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim.rst | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
base-commit: b761d53965a239abe1469f2e4e2d4f7d69fac9bd
--
2.47.3
Forwarding sashiko.dev review status for this thread. # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329153052.46657-1-sj@kernel.org - [PATCH 1/2] Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim: warn commit_inputs vs param updates race - status: Reviewed - review: ISSUES MAY FOUND - [PATCH 2/2] Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/lru_sort: warn commit_inputs vs param updates race - status: Reviewed - review: ISSUES MAY FOUND # hkml [1] generated a draft of this mail. It can be regenerated # using below command: # # hkml patch sashiko_dev --thread_status --for_forwarding \ # 20260329153052.46657-1-sj@kernel.org # # [1] https://github.com/sjp38/hackermail Sent using hkml (https://github.com/sjp38/hackermail)
On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 08:49:16AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > Forwarding sashiko.dev review status for this thread. > > # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329153052.46657-1-sj@kernel.org Why are you doing this? If we want to see the review, can't we just go and look at the tool itself? sending it back to all of us feels odd, especially when it is your own patches. confused, greg k-h
+ Roman for a case he has any opinion about my sashiko usage. Hello Greg, On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 20:05:53 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 08:49:16AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > > Forwarding sashiko.dev review status for this thread. > > > > # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329153052.46657-1-sj@kernel.org > > Why are you doing this? If we want to see the review, can't we just go > and look at the tool itself? We can. But it is bit cumbersome to opening web browser and moving my focus to there. Reading everything on the mailing tool is easier for some people like me. Like some test bots send reports are replying to patches, or we sometimes forwarding bugzilla reports to mailing lists in a form of a plain text mail. Secondly, I have to share my opinions about the reviews, as many times AI reviews need human's opinions. There is no good way to do that on the web ui of the tool (sashiko) for now, and I think this mail based flow is the best. And anyway I'm supposed to share at least my review of AI reviews, in mm community. If I ignore, I will only make Andrew have to reply asking that. I used to share only my review of the AI reviews as replies, instead of forwarding AI reviews and then replies to those. But it was 1. cumbersome for me (should summarize AI review and then my review; feeling doing work twice), and 2. feeling not optimal at sharing all concerning comments with others. My summary might miss some points of AI review but other reviewers might just believe me and don't read the full review due to the additional web browser opening work. Also some other reivewers might kindly review AI reviews before I do, and save my (or their) time. Hence I ended up to do this bit odd workflow: Forwarding the full AI review on the mailing list first, then reply my responses. > sending it back to all of us feels odd, If this is polluting your inbox and/or distract you, I'm so sorry for that. Please let me know if this is distracting you. Maybe I can filtering people who don't want this kind of replies out of the recipients for the forwarding mails. Or, if you have a suggestion about what need to be changed, please let me know. > especially when it is your own patches. Unfortuantely sashiko cannot send email on its own (yet). So I'm doing that until it can. > > confused, I hope my above explanation helps you. Thanks, SJ [...]
On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 12:32:26 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 20:05:53 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 08:49:16AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > Forwarding sashiko.dev review status for this thread. > > > > > > # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329153052.46657-1-sj@kernel.org > > > > Why are you doing this? If we want to see the review, can't we just go > > and look at the tool itself? > > We can. But it is bit cumbersome to opening web browser and moving my focus to > there. Reading everything on the mailing tool is easier for some people like > me. Like some test bots send reports are replying to patches, or we sometimes > forwarding bugzilla reports to mailing lists in a form of a plain text mail. > > Secondly, I have to share my opinions about the reviews, as many times AI > reviews need human's opinions. There is no good way to do that on the web ui > of the tool (sashiko) for now, and I think this mail based flow is the best. I do agree with Greg that it's all a bit excessive. Thanks for your your diligence, but perhaps dial it back a bit? It's OK - we're all trying to figure out how best to utilize this tool. I view Sashiko as primarily an author tool. Sometimes I call it checkpatch++. In a better world, author would be able to sort out Sashiko issues before ever sending out the patchset. But in this world, a public send is needed to obtain that review. So what we're presently seeing is author development activity which is unfortunately and inappropriately being conducted on a public list. Personally, I pay only a little attention to author's Sashiko activity. Just enough to see whether I should pay more attention. If author says "oops, let me redo" then fine, I'll await the next spin. If author says "that was all nonsense" then fine, time to take a closer look.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 02:22:05PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I view Sashiko as primarily an author tool. Sometimes I call it > checkpatch++. In a better world, author would be able to sort out > Sashiko issues before ever sending out the patchset. But in this > world, a public send is needed to obtain that review. Note that Sashiko is fully open source and the prompts are available in third_party/prompts in the git repo: https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko So people can run it privately, although they will need to provide their own LLM credits. This also means that you can use some other LLM besides Gemini 3.1 Pro. Cheers, - Ted
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:19:43 -0400 "Theodore Tso" <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 02:22:05PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > I view Sashiko as primarily an author tool. Sometimes I call it > > checkpatch++. In a better world, author would be able to sort out > > Sashiko issues before ever sending out the patchset. But in this > > world, a public send is needed to obtain that review. > > Note that Sashiko is fully open source and the prompts are available > in third_party/prompts in the git repo: > > https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko > > So people can run it privately, although they will need to provide > their own LLM credits. That's unfortunately a barrier to some people. To me, what makes sashiko special and different from other AI review tools is the fact that it is automatically reviewing nearly every kernel patch for free and publicly sharing the results. Thanks, SJ [...]
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:22:05 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 12:32:26 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 20:05:53 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 08:49:16AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > Forwarding sashiko.dev review status for this thread. > > > > > > > > # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329153052.46657-1-sj@kernel.org > > > > > > Why are you doing this? If we want to see the review, can't we just go > > > and look at the tool itself? > > > > We can. But it is bit cumbersome to opening web browser and moving my focus to > > there. Reading everything on the mailing tool is easier for some people like > > me. Like some test bots send reports are replying to patches, or we sometimes > > forwarding bugzilla reports to mailing lists in a form of a plain text mail. > > > > Secondly, I have to share my opinions about the reviews, as many times AI > > reviews need human's opinions. There is no good way to do that on the web ui > > of the tool (sashiko) for now, and I think this mail based flow is the best. > > I do agree with Greg that it's all a bit excessive. Thanks for your > your diligence, but perhaps dial it back a bit? It's OK - we're all > trying to figure out how best to utilize this tool. Thank you for your kind words, Andrew. I understand and admit the fact that this looks excessive. > > I view Sashiko as primarily an author tool. Sometimes I call it > checkpatch++. Thank you for sharing your perspective. This is helpful at what you want from the use of the tool, thank you. My view of sashiko was a human reviewer that having very odd characteristic and cannot answer to my feedback for a reason, but still being useful in many cases. Hence I wanted to help the special reviewer be able to communicate with others on the mailing list. And I was thinking anyway that's what sashiko will do, because I saw sending review as mail as one of TODO items for sashiko, from the public announcement, and I onboarded DAMON for that. But apparently not everyone is sharing same view. My understanding of the TODO item in sashiko public announcement may also be biased. Maybe being a subsystem's sole maintainer that looking for a reviewer made such uncautiously biased perspectives. > In a better world, author would be able to sort out > Sashiko issues before ever sending out the patchset. But in this > world, a public send is needed to obtain that review. > > So what we're presently seeing is author development activity which is > unfortunately and inappropriately being conducted on a public list. Makes sense. Now I understand why you and Roman were discussing having a separate mailing list for sharing the reviews via mail as a path forward, and I agree that could be a good option. > > Personally, I pay only a little attention to author's Sashiko activity. > Just enough to see whether I should pay more attention. If author > says "oops, let me redo" then fine, I'll await the next spin. If > author says "that was all nonsense" then fine, time to take a closer > look. Makes sense. I will try to keep sharing necessary information, but for only targetted audiences, with less traffic. Thanks, SJ
On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 12:32:26PM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > + Roman for a case he has any opinion about my sashiko usage. > > Hello Greg, > > On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 20:05:53 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 08:49:16AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > Forwarding sashiko.dev review status for this thread. > > > > > > # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329153052.46657-1-sj@kernel.org > > > > Why are you doing this? If we want to see the review, can't we just go > > and look at the tool itself? > > We can. But it is bit cumbersome to opening web browser and moving my focus to > there. Reading everything on the mailing tool is easier for some people like > me. Like some test bots send reports are replying to patches, or we sometimes > forwarding bugzilla reports to mailing lists in a form of a plain text mail. Sure, but are you going to now forward all random tool reviews that are run on your subsystem to all of these lists (your distribution cc: is quite large here)? > Secondly, I have to share my opinions about the reviews, as many times AI > reviews need human's opinions. There is no good way to do that on the web ui > of the tool (sashiko) for now, and I think this mail based flow is the best. That is assuming that you can fix up the AI reviews, is that happening here? > And anyway I'm supposed to share at least my review of AI reviews, in mm > community. If I ignore, I will only make Andrew have to reply asking that. > > I used to share only my review of the AI reviews as replies, instead of > forwarding AI reviews and then replies to those. But it was > 1. cumbersome for me (should summarize AI review and then my review; feeling > doing work twice), and > 2. feeling not optimal at sharing all concerning comments with others. My > summary might miss some points of AI review but other reviewers might just > believe me and don't read the full review due to the additional web browser > opening work. Also some other reivewers might kindly review AI reviews > before I do, and save my (or their) time. > > Hence I ended up to do this bit odd workflow: Forwarding the full AI review on > the mailing list first, then reply my responses. > > > sending it back to all of us feels odd, > > If this is polluting your inbox and/or distract you, I'm so sorry for that. > Please let me know if this is distracting you. Maybe I can filtering people > who don't want this kind of replies out of the recipients for the forwarding > mails. Or, if you have a suggestion about what need to be changed, please let > me know. It just seemed odd, and might get crazy over time if this happens for all random AI tools that happen to be popping up now, right? If this is the "official" one for -mm, that's fine, but consider the distribution and intended audience a bit please. thanks, greg k-h
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 07:47:54 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 12:32:26PM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > > + Roman for a case he has any opinion about my sashiko usage. > > > > Hello Greg, > > > > On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 20:05:53 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 08:49:16AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > Forwarding sashiko.dev review status for this thread. > > > > > > > > # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329153052.46657-1-sj@kernel.org > > > > > > Why are you doing this? If we want to see the review, can't we just go > > > and look at the tool itself? > > > > We can. But it is bit cumbersome to opening web browser and moving my focus to > > there. Reading everything on the mailing tool is easier for some people like > > me. Like some test bots send reports are replying to patches, or we sometimes > > forwarding bugzilla reports to mailing lists in a form of a plain text mail. > > Sure, but are you going to now forward all random tool reviews that are > run on your subsystem to all of these lists (your distribution cc: is > quite large here)? Obviously not for random tools. But if there are a few tools that (nearly) everyone agrees useful and worthy to integrate with the mailing lists workflow, I would like to. Now it seems I was much more optimistic that others. > > > Secondly, I have to share my opinions about the reviews, as many times AI > > reviews need human's opinions. There is no good way to do that on the web ui > > of the tool (sashiko) for now, and I think this mail based flow is the best. > > That is assuming that you can fix up the AI reviews, is that happening > here? What I mean with the required human opinions for the AI reviews are not necessarily only for fixups, but also sharing of reviews that the human and the tool are aligned. But in this case, I was sharing the review results seems incorrect, or doesn't need deep dive at least: https://lore.kernel.org/20260329163102.58683-1-sj@kernel.org > > > And anyway I'm supposed to share at least my review of AI reviews, in mm > > community. If I ignore, I will only make Andrew have to reply asking that. > > > > I used to share only my review of the AI reviews as replies, instead of > > forwarding AI reviews and then replies to those. But it was > > 1. cumbersome for me (should summarize AI review and then my review; feeling > > doing work twice), and > > 2. feeling not optimal at sharing all concerning comments with others. My > > summary might miss some points of AI review but other reviewers might just > > believe me and don't read the full review due to the additional web browser > > opening work. Also some other reivewers might kindly review AI reviews > > before I do, and save my (or their) time. > > > > Hence I ended up to do this bit odd workflow: Forwarding the full AI review on > > the mailing list first, then reply my responses. > > > > > sending it back to all of us feels odd, > > > > If this is polluting your inbox and/or distract you, I'm so sorry for that. > > Please let me know if this is distracting you. Maybe I can filtering people > > who don't want this kind of replies out of the recipients for the forwarding > > mails. Or, if you have a suggestion about what need to be changed, please let > > me know. > > It just seemed odd, and might get crazy over time if this happens for > all random AI tools that happen to be popping up now, right? As I also mentioned above, I agree. And seems in this case I was much more optimistic that others, or hallucinated ;) > If this is > the "official" one for -mm, that's fine, but consider the distribution > and intended audience a bit please. Andrew replied this is not such official and recommended action for mm. I once thought this could be the official one for DAMON only. But in any case, I now understand this can look crazy, odd or excessive to some people including those that I believe. I will think about a better way to use this tool, while keeping your inputs in my mind. Thank you so much for sharing your opinions, Greg. Thanks, SJ [...]
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 07:47:54 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > And anyway I'm supposed to share at least my review of AI reviews, in mm > > community. If I ignore, I will only make Andrew have to reply asking that. Actually no. I see you're using Sashiko extensively so great, you'll hear nothing more on Sashiko-vs-DAMON from me!
On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 08:49:16 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote: > Forwarding sashiko.dev review status for this thread. > > # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329153052.46657-1-sj@kernel.org > > - [PATCH 1/2] Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/reclaim: warn commit_inputs vs param updates race > - status: Reviewed > - review: ISSUES MAY FOUND > - [PATCH 2/2] Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon/lru_sort: warn commit_inputs vs param updates race > - status: Reviewed > - review: ISSUES MAY FOUND TL; DR: I believe those are not issues. Thanks, SJ [...]
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.