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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E88C4338F for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D285A610E6 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:03:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org D285A610E6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4A9BF6B006C; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 45A0D8D0001; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:03:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 348F56B0072; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:03:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3066B006C for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin34.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A5B182BCC47 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:03:21 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78513467802.34.368A3D9 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D121018F95 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A6516112D; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:03:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1629893000; bh=zBJ8+9ku38bfHUh58Fx3TVL+5MVfv6XNhkYjTSMb0cA=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=NLzUGNiYNcL+ekext3l75EV5XpugcrM+fZxM7I8FLeilj3c4UswndH7llwCf+uMJ+ nBIfkMPb97vJrw4aeQFCOUGJx7JyRIGZ9VF+dwAkBYEC1emwoBTwhwKgAwE9P7CWpS 0Rq0pSoLhTHS9WgB6b+kgpd6X3u8PcgDqlnfwZgcgAjVl2Nw+B+5MDRNY4D15xLnlh zcbqm1eRlzTrtXip2Fbp0v5dpgd6yEaRO3z3xiRANCqA5GyEHw2RHjJkqtL2ZISNAR Vykknz1PP13CKjOseJinTl0V02kzRwJ362IqsXdfCO/GLq2xvbXQvFEXLl6GCKaeIz hRIh8fdFefCAw== Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Memory folios for v5.15 From: Jeff Layton To: Christoph Hellwig , Theodore Ts'o Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Linus Torvalds , David Howells , Johannes Weiner , Linux-MM , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:03:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1957060.1629820467@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.4 (3.40.4-1.fc34) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: imf13.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=NLzUGNiY; spf=pass (imf13.hostedemail.com: domain of jlayton@kernel.org designates 198.145.29.99 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jlayton@kernel.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=kernel.org X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 43D121018F95 X-Stat-Signature: gn1z1omh4awhw347p314mris4okbsk1n X-HE-Tag: 1629893001-81576 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: On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 07:32 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 03:44:48PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > The problem is whether we use struct head_page, or folio, or mempages, > > we're going to be subsystem users' faces. And people who are using it > > every day will eventually get used to anything, whether it's "folio" > > or "xmoqax", we sould give a thought to newcomers to Linux file system > > code. If they see things like "read_folio()", they are going to be > > far more confused than "read_pages()" or "read_mempages()". > > Are they? It's not like page isn't some randomly made up term > as well, just one that had a lot more time to spread. > Absolutely. "folio" is no worse than "page", we've just had more time to get used to "page". > > So if someone sees "kmem_cache_alloc()", they can probably make a > > guess what it means, and it's memorable once they learn it. > > Similarly, something like "head_page", or "mempages" is going to a bit > > more obvious to a kernel newbie. So if we can make a tiny gesture > > towards comprehensibility, it would be good to do so while it's still > > easier to change the name. > > All this sounds really weird to me. I doubt there is any name that > nicely explains "structure used to manage arbitrary power of two > units of memory in the kernel" very well. So I agree with willy here, > let's pick something short and not clumsy. I initially found the folio > name a little strange, but working with it I got used to it quickly. > And all the other uggestions I've seen s far are significantly worse, > especially all the odd compounds with page in it. Same here. Compound words are especially bad, as newbies will continually have to look at whether it's "page_set" or "pageset". -- Jeff Layton