From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ilvokhin.com (mail.ilvokhin.com [178.62.254.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D9C81DE8AE; Wed, 4 Mar 2026 13:01:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.254.231 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772629320; cv=none; b=SpxJXVm7Fkr/vc4ly7wfhr9R+OT7WKR2BYLDtEn9UWJua2ZXuoDSjjM9Rz+fnaZz6GbtKWqrqf3snnLnrOB1t1q18tBs4dJL5HL78WB4RhvwzHcKakPVSPhaz2Eo1hFEdzDeCjPcEr8idb0VTdEN6GxXQfjasX9VZUhaBkWhVPI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772629320; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Kb3qzLz/b1BGRAyVf2N/dxJ8GTEZDpzuub4ZDwWzUNE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tWHXSpKfMBpK5/iScNnSeA2YXCObWiHAKnPaOPHhQlsOkqgebzcPSeckMoVqF8g+oVKhsltgFIEYgbnNW1bcuuKfulHW7kiYJpQDUvLusIVcD3JjzH4kB4R6DjrhxEIDDFcX3ss8FcKGHoaHybLkNqACpN+6FAmL5zv1Z6aDde4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ilvokhin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilvokhin.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ilvokhin.com header.i=@ilvokhin.com header.b=pFthcIOp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.254.231 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ilvokhin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilvokhin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ilvokhin.com header.i=@ilvokhin.com header.b="pFthcIOp" Received: from shell.ilvokhin.com (shell.ilvokhin.com [138.68.190.75]) (Authenticated sender: d@ilvokhin.com) by mail.ilvokhin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87BDEB3180; Wed, 04 Mar 2026 13:01:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ilvokhin.com; s=mail; t=1772629310; bh=A9Z22CwhsOMBQOd91GzYVcy5QaFqoA5vc5xFlhCLB5c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=pFthcIOpg6gMssYocf5aeRIIf77W9v5hZIKXBO7FBI43GEFsFtiRaFd/8KmWzEQbq r5Mij1YYDKyrPnmIdgwa/tHoTR+2WzWnTHVmDS1cW790Wkj+VNUORUSHNy9/MsuVMl j/JEInhSlK7v2JYG+6N18JlNqCd4oHXPL8TqT9y0= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 13:01:45 +0000 From: Dmitry Ilvokhin To: SeongJae Park Cc: Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , Lorenzo Stoakes , "Liam R. Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Axel Rasmussen , Yuanchu Xie , Wei Xu , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , Len Brown , Brendan Jackman , Johannes Weiner , Zi Yan , Oscar Salvador , Qi Zheng , Shakeel Butt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: rename zone->lock to zone->_lock Message-ID: References: <20260304015035.84839-1-sj@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260304015035.84839-1-sj@kernel.org> On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 05:50:34PM -0800, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 14:25:55 +0000 Dmitry Ilvokhin wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 02:37:43PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 15:10:03 +0100 "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" wrote: > > > > > > > On 2/27/26 17:00, Dmitry Ilvokhin wrote: > > > > > This intentionally breaks direct users of zone->lock at compile time so > > > > > all call sites are converted to the zone lock wrappers. Without the > > > > > rename, present and future out-of-tree code could continue using > > > > > spin_lock(&zone->lock) and bypass the wrappers and tracing > > > > > infrastructure. > > > > > > > > > > No functional change intended. > > > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Andrew Morton > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin > > > > > Acked-by: Shakeel Butt > > > > > Acked-by: SeongJae Park > > > > > > > > I see some more instances of 'zone->lock' in comments in > > > > include/linux/mmzone.h and under Documentation/ but otherwise LGTM. > > > > > > > > > > I fixed (most of) that in the previous version but my fix was lost. > > > > Thanks for the fixups, Andrew. > > > > I still see a few 'zone->lock' references in Documentation remain on > > mm-new. This patch cleans them up, as noted by Vlastimil. > > > > I'm happy to adjust this patch if anything else needs attention. > > > > From 9142d5a8b60038fa424a6033253960682e5a51f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Dmitry Ilvokhin > > Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 06:13:13 -0800 > > Subject: [PATCH] mm: fix remaining zone->lock references > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin > > --- > > Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst | 4 ++-- > > Documentation/trace/events-kmem.rst | 8 ++++---- > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst b/Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst > > index b76183545e5b..e344f93515b6 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst > > @@ -500,11 +500,11 @@ General > > ``nr_isolate_pageblock`` > > Number of isolated pageblocks. It is used to solve incorrect freepage counting > > problem due to racy retrieving migratetype of pageblock. Protected by > > - ``zone->lock``. Defined only when ``CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION`` is enabled. > > + ``zone_lock``. Defined only when ``CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION`` is enabled. > > Dmitry's original patch [1] was doing 's/zone->lock/zone->_lock/', which aligns > to my expectation. But this patch is doing 's/zone->lock/zone_lock/'. Same > for the rest of this patch. > > I was initially thinking this is just a mistake, but I also found Andrew is > doing same change [2], so I'm bit confused. Is this an intentional change? > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/d61500c5784c64e971f4d328c57639303c475f81.1772206930.git.d@ilvokhin.com > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/20260302143743.220eed4feb36d7572fe726cc@linux-foundation.org > Good catch, thanks for pointing this out, SJ. Originally the mechanical rename was indeed zone->lock -> zone->_lock. However, in Documentation I intentionally switched references to zone_lock instead of zone->_lock. The reasoning is that _lock is now an internal implementation detail, and direct access is discouraged. The intended interface is via the zone_lock_*() / zone_unlock_*() wrappers, so referencing zone_lock in documentation felt more appropriate than mentioning the private struct field (zone->_lock). That said, I agree this creates inconsistency with the mechanical rename, and I'm happy to adjust either way: either consistently refer to the wrapper API, or keep documentation aligned with zone->_lock. I slightly prefer referring to the wrapper API, but don't have a strong preference as long as we're consistent. > > Thanks, > SJ > > [...]