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;
Message-ID: <51fc9dfe-1cac-69f6-0c68-46a83fd7783d@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jan 2022 19:47:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.4.0
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] mm: introduce page pin owner
Content-Language: en-US
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        John Dias <joaodias@google.com>, huww98@outlook.com,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
References: <20211228175904.3739751-1-minchan@kernel.org>
 <cf596fdc-6599-7c53-26e8-1524c5f214f7@redhat.com>
 <Yd8AYViR6vuBVU2L@google.com>
 <c9c97e6a-5bb6-475e-2d0e-d791f11d2cf9@redhat.com>
 <Yd884YERYI+UvXbj@google.com>
 <35d7f27c-44e3-3921-c8d3-b6dee3b01238@redhat.com>
 <YeGnSG3BS5np9mUa@google.com>
 <8f02e71b-5de7-4342-7371-a7fe19b114b5@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <8f02e71b-5de7-4342-7371-a7fe19b114b5@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


>>>>>> Otherwise, I'd like to have feature naming more higher level>>>>>> to represent page migration failure and then tracking unref of
>>>>>> the page. In the sense, PagePinOwner John suggested was good
>>>>>> candidate(Even, my original naming PagePinner was worse) since
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I dislike both variants.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was trouble to abstract the feature with short word.
>>>>>> If we approach "what feature is doing" rather than "what's
>>>>>> the feature's goal"(I feel the your suggestion would be close
>>>>>> to what feature is doing), I'd like to express "unreference on
>>>>>> migraiton failed page" so PAGE_EXT_UNMIGRATED_UNREF
>>>>>> (However, I prefer the feature naming more "what we want to achieve")
>>>>>>
>>>>> E.g., PAGE_EXT_TRACE_UNREF will trace unref to the page once the bit is
>>>>> set. The functionality itself is completely independent of migration
>>>>> failures. That's just the code that sets it to enable the underlying
>>>>> tracing for that specific page.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that make something general is great but I also want to avoid
>>>> create something too big from the beginning with just imagination.
>>>> So, I'd like to hear more concrete and appealing usecases and then
>>>> we could think over this trace approach is really the best one to
>>>> achieve the goal. Once it's agreed, the naming you suggested would
>>>> make sense. 
>>>
>>> At least for me it's a lot cleaner if a feature clearly expresses what
>>> it actually does. Staring at PAGE_EXT_PIN_OWNER I initially had no clue.
>>> I was assuming we would actually track (not trace!) all active FOLL_PIN
>>> (not unref callers!). Maybe that makes it clearer why I'd prefer a
>>> clearer name.
>>
>> I totally agree PagePinOwner is not 100% straightforward. I'm open for
>> other better name. Currently we are discussing how we could generalize
>> and whether it's useful or not. Depending on the discussion, the design/
>> interface as well as naming could be changed. No problem.
> 
> PagePinOwner is just highly misleading. Because that's not what the
> feature does. Having that said, i hope we'll get other opinions as well.

FWIW, I think "page reference holder" would be clearer. PageRefHolder or
PageReferenceHolder

"Trace page reference holders on unref after migration of a page failed."

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb