Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: introduce process_reap system call | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Date | Mon, 5 Jul 2021 09:41:54 +0200 |
| |
On 02.07.21 17:27, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 03:59:48PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 5:44 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:45 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:51:36AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:26 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote: >>>>>> Also, please consider removing all mention of the word "reap" from the >>>>>> user API. For better or for worse, "reap" in UNIX refers to what >>>>>> happens when a dead task gets wait()ed. I sincerely wish I could go >>>>>> back in time and gently encourage whomever invented that particular >>>>>> abomination to change their mind, but my time machine doesn't work. >>>>> >>>>> I see. Thanks for the note. How about process_mem_release() and >>>>> replacing reap with release everywhere? >>>> >>>> I don't quite understand the objection. This syscall works on tasks >>>> that are at the end of their life, right? Isn't something like >>>> process_mreap() establishing exactly the mental link we want here? >>>> Release is less descriptive for what this thing is to be used for. >>> >>> For better or for worse, "reap" means to make a zombie pid go away. >>> From the description, this new operation takes a dying process (not >>> necessarily a zombie yet) and aggressively frees its memory. This is >>> a different optioneration. >>> >>> How about "free_dying_process_memory"? >> >> process_mreap sounds definitely better and in line with names like >> process_madvise. So maybe we can use it? > > That one was my favorite from the list I gave too but maybe we can > satisfy Andy too if we use one of: > - process_mfree() > - process_mrelease() >
FWIW, I tend to like process_mrelease(), due to the implied "release" ("free the memory if there are no other references") semantics. Further, a new syscall feels cleaner than some magic sysfs/procfs toggle. Just my 2 cents.
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |