On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 5:44 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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"? process_mreap sounds definitely better and in line with names like process_madvise. So maybe we can use it?
