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;
Sender: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:57:04 -0800
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] mm: introduce page pin owner
Message-ID: <YeHHgGD9osY95y4v@google.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>
 <51fc9dfe-1cac-69f6-0c68-46a83fd7783d@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51fc9dfe-1cac-69f6-0c68-46a83fd7783d@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 07:47:49PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
> >>>>>> 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."

Ah, crossed email. PageRefHolder. Yeah, sounds like better!