On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 08:25:29AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 12:24:08PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > > I tried to come up with something better, but wasn't happy with any of > > > the options, either. So I defaulted to just leaving it alone :-) > > > > > > It's part of the shrinker API and the name hasn't changed since the > > > initial git import of the kernel tree. It should be fine, churn-wise. > > > > Last attempt, just update_reclaim_state() (corresponding to > > flush_reclaim_state() below). It doesn't tell a story, but neither > > does incrementing a counter in current->reclaim_state. If that doesn't > > make you happy I'll give up now and leave it as-is :) > > This is used in different subsystem shrinkers outside mm/, so the > name needs to be correctly namespaced. Please prefix it with the > subsystem the function belongs to, at minimum. > > mm_account_reclaimed_pages() is what is actually being done here. > It is self describing and leaves behind no ambiguity as to what is > being accounted and why, nor which subsystem the accounting belongs > to. > > It doesn't matter what the internal mm/vmscan structures are called, > all we care about is telling the mm infrastructure how many extra > pages were freed by the shrinker.... My first preference would still be to just leave it. IMO that one line saved in a small handful of places isn't worth the indirection, obscuring the `current' deref etc. But mm_account_reclaimed_pages() works for me if you really want to enapsulate it.
