On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:45 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:51:36AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:26 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Also, please consider removing all mention of the word "reap" from the > > > user API. For better or for worse, "reap" in UNIX refers to what > > > happens when a dead task gets wait()ed. I sincerely wish I could go > > > back in time and gently encourage whomever invented that particular > > > abomination to change their mind, but my time machine doesn't work. > > > > I see. Thanks for the note. How about process_mem_release() and > > replacing reap with release everywhere? > > I don't quite understand the objection. This syscall works on tasks > that are at the end of their life, right? Isn't something like > process_mreap() establishing exactly the mental link we want here? > Release is less descriptive for what this thing is to be used for. For better or for worse, "reap" means to make a zombie pid go away. >From the description, this new operation takes a dying process (not necessarily a zombie yet) and aggressively frees its memory. This is a different optioneration. How about "free_dying_process_memory"?
