From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89010C47DD9 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:26:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 18BB46B0072; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:26:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 114E46B0081; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:26:06 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id EF76A6B008A; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:26:05 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF1A6B0072 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:26:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin01.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4873A1843 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:26:05 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81707625090.01.3FD6D53 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D45A180023 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:26:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of ryan.roberts@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ryan.roberts@arm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1705944364; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fyeouQDBKH3zmSkGCGCweAXt9nnJcaYJ2uGQh02J2OI=; b=lZXky5ahF/7ioy7/DP7bMEpStgAjAO6XgH/jHfYLDUTY3tSbIxR2Bk5JO42ut9Pfz3KJvZ h6vRz5abr6+hxnDfw8FDEom+lNLRkh2gUL9cWqGhCNPd0vIn9lDhKzI5quK21FafK4pWFX dtTwnYTaayHXj4HLNy3AFxON2/XqJFY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of ryan.roberts@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ryan.roberts@arm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1705944364; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=A8d6jp2axWQfbQYdOvKnQzKRaa1mR7oAd2IzfBW3KlslSrZQcnS6kys3LRLG9LO5nTbzVa SuRjl2h2PUfRWioZBAacl6F6p5OBUX4ntIELsq3QRuRhCBgmebEjBU7xuz/dGdHrevefKo gqkVHZ1m1pqunn7F6t4yFa7CbtlNXh8= Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 607361FB; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 09:26:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.33.151] (XHFQ2J9959.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.33.151]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04EC13F5A1; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 09:26:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:26:00 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 28/40] mm/memory: page_remove_rmap() -> folio_remove_rmap_pte() Content-Language: en-GB To: Matthew Wilcox , David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Yin Fengwei , Mike Kravetz , Muchun Song , Peter Xu References: <20231220224504.646757-1-david@redhat.com> <20231220224504.646757-29-david@redhat.com> <2445cedb-61fb-422c-8bfb-caf0a2beed62@arm.com> <007e83fa-16c7-4700-b326-ee8cb7809f9f@redhat.com> From: Ryan Roberts In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1D45A180023 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: gh4iwewod55w3fh8fcq3yiskfnp9zc4x X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-HE-Tag: 1705944363-663837 X-HE-Meta: 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 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 22/01/2024 17:20, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 06:01:58PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> And folio_mark_dirty() is doing more than just setting teh PG_dirty bit. In my >>> equivalent change, as part of the contpte series, I've swapped set_page_dirty() >>> for folio_mark_dirty(). >> >> Good catch, that should be folio_mark_dirty(). Let me send a fixup. >> >> (the difference in naming for both functions really is bad) > > It really is, and I don't know what to do about it. > > We need a function that literally just sets the flag. For every other > flag, that's folio_set_FLAG. We can't use __folio_set_flag because that > means "set the flag non-atomically". > > We need a function that does all of the work involved with tracking > dirty folios. I chose folio_mark_dirty() to align with > folio_mark_uptodate() (ie mark is not just 'set" but also "do some extra > work"). > > But because we're converting from set_page_dirty(), the OBVIOUS rename > is to folio_set_dirty(), which is WRONG. > > So we're in the part of the design space where the consistent naming and > the-obvious-thing-to-do-is-wrong are in collision, and I do not have a > good answer. > > Maybe we can call the first function _folio_set_dirty(), and we don't > have a folio_set_dirty() at all? We don't have a folio_set_uptodate(), > so there's some precedent there. Is there anything stopping us from renaming set_page_dirty() to mark_page_dirty() (or page_mark_dirty())? For me the folio naming is consistent, but the page names suck; presumably PageSetDirty() and set_page_dirty()... yuk.