Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH resend 3/6] mm: Add refcount for preserving mm_struct without pgd | From | John Hubbard <> | Date | Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:18:49 -0800 |
| |
On 11/3/20 5:21 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 04:19:11AM +0100, Jann Horn wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:11 AM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 2:30 AM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 1:21 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 01:09:12AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: >>>>>> Currently, mm_struct has two refcounts: ... > Either way can work, I liked the suggestion because it suggests an > good name for the ref: 'mmget_pgd' or somesuch > > What I don't like is how nonsensical the names here are becoming: > mmget/mmgrab/mm_ref > > Gives no impression at the callsite what is right/wrong > > Names like this: > mmget_struct > mmget_pgd > mmget_tables >
What?! I had just resigned myself to a bimonthly exercise, re-memorizing the mm_struct naming correlation between grab, drop, get, put, count, and users. And now you want to make it directly understandable? :)
> Make alot more sense to me.. > > I think this patch needs to do something about the naming.. >
A third counter also seems like the tipping point, to me.
thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
| |