MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1675111415.git.andreyknvl@google.com> <fc73ab8b1469d476363a918cbdfe28e1388c043a.1675111415.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <CAG_fn=WxZf_kfn8-G8hvoxvUT8-NKNkXuP5Tg2bZp=zzMXOByw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+fCnZdOFOUF6FEPkg2aU46rKYz8L9UAos4sRhcvfXKi26_MUw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+fCnZdOFOUF6FEPkg2aU46rKYz8L9UAos4sRhcvfXKi26_MUw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:38:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CANpmjNNgoHdmZEmnOMzBTXZ_Px=fipg-iSk3Hv1fE7MO7+fovg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] lib/stackdepot: rename slab variables
To:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        andrey.konovalov@linux.dev, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 20:06, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 12:59 PM Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:50 PM <andrey.konovalov@linux.dev> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
> > >
> > > Give better names to slab-related global variables: change "depot_"
> > > prefix to "slab_" to point out that these variables are related to
> > > stack depot slabs.
> >
> > I started asking myself if the word "slab" is applicable here at all.
> > The concept of preallocating big chunks of memory to amortize the
> > costs belongs to the original slab allocator, but "slab" has a special
> > meaning in Linux, and we might be confusing people by using it in a
> > different sense.
> > What do you think?
>
> Yes, I agree that using this word is a bit confusing.
>
> Not sure what be a good alternative though. "Region", "block",
> "collection", and "chunk" come to mind, but they don't reflect the
> purpose/usage of these allocations as good as "slab". Although it's
> possible that my perception as affected by overly frequently looking
> at the slab allocator internals :)
>
> Do you have a suggestion of a better word?

I'd vote for "pool" and "chunk(s)" (within that pool).