Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.112.34 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.112.34; helo=mail.nvidia.com;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/8] mm/rmap: Split try_to_munlock from try_to_unmap
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To:     Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
CC:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>, <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
        <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
        <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
        <jglisse@redhat.com>, <hch@infradead.org>, <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        <willy@infradead.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
References: <20210326000805.2518-1-apopple@nvidia.com>
 <20210330222440.GC2356281@nvidia.com>
 <bce0605a-336f-99ba-5b65-a8e5a7e49e00@nvidia.com>
 <12636584.zsJ0Sx4KLp@nvdebian>
 <b4b11c59-975d-26c7-043a-6acddff78dfd@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <5f156670-e8d0-e62a-2286-764687a6669f@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 21:09:56 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b4b11c59-975d-26c7-043a-6acddff78dfd@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2021 04:09:57.5524
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b1e0ab9e-2a38-4cd6-d901-08d8f3fad8c5
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.112.34];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8NAM11FT051.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CH2PR12MB4247
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 3/30/21 8:56 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/30/21 3:56 PM, Alistair Popple wrote:
> ...
>>> +1 for renaming "munlock*" items to "mlock*", where applicable. good grief.
>>
>> At least the situation was weird enough to prompt further investigation :)
>>
>> Renaming to mlock* doesn't feel like the right solution to me either though. I
>> am not sure if you saw me responding to myself earlier but I am thinking
>> renaming try_to_munlock() -> page_mlocked() and try_to_munlock_one() ->
>> page_mlock_one() might be better. Thoughts?
>>
> 
> Quite confused by this naming idea. Because: try_to_munlock() returns
> void, so a boolean-style name such as "page_mlocked()" is already not a
> good fit.
> 
> Even more important, though, is that try_to_munlock() is mlock-ing the
> page, right? Is there some subtle point I'm missing? It really is doing
> an mlock to the best of my knowledge here. Although the kerneldoc
> comment for try_to_munlock() seems questionable too:
> 
> /**
> * try_to_munlock - try to munlock a page
> * @page: the page to be munlocked
> *
> * Called from munlock code.  Checks all of the VMAs mapping the page
> * to make sure nobody else has this page mlocked. The page will be
> * returned with PG_mlocked cleared if no other vmas have it mlocked.
> */
> 
> ...because I don't see where, in *this* routine, it clears PG_mlocked!
> 
> Obviously we agree that a routine should be named based on what it does,
> rather than on who calls it. So I think that still leads to:
> 
>      try_to_munlock() --> try_to_mlock()
>      try_to_munlock_one() --> try_to_mlock_one()
> 
> Sorry if I'm missing something really obvious.

Actually, re-reading your and Jason's earlier points in the thread, I see
that I'm *not* missing anything, and we are actually in agreement about how
the code operates. OK, good!

Also, as you point out above, maybe the "try_" prefix is not really accurate
either, given how this works. So maybe we have arrived at something like:

     try_to_munlock() --> page_mlock() // or mlock_page()...
     try_to_munlock_one() --> page_mlock_one()


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA