On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:57:04AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 07:47:49PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > >>>>>> Otherwise, I'd like to have feature naming more higher level>>>>>> to represent page migration failure and then tracking unref of > > >>>>>> the page. In the sense, PagePinOwner John suggested was good > > >>>>>> candidate(Even, my original naming PagePinner was worse) since > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I dislike both variants. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I was trouble to abstract the feature with short word. > > >>>>>> If we approach "what feature is doing" rather than "what's > > >>>>>> the feature's goal"(I feel the your suggestion would be close > > >>>>>> to what feature is doing), I'd like to express "unreference on > > >>>>>> migraiton failed page" so PAGE_EXT_UNMIGRATED_UNREF > > >>>>>> (However, I prefer the feature naming more "what we want to achieve") > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> E.g., PAGE_EXT_TRACE_UNREF will trace unref to the page once the bit is > > >>>>> set. The functionality itself is completely independent of migration > > >>>>> failures. That's just the code that sets it to enable the underlying > > >>>>> tracing for that specific page. > > >>>> > > >>>> I agree that make something general is great but I also want to avoid > > >>>> create something too big from the beginning with just imagination. > > >>>> So, I'd like to hear more concrete and appealing usecases and then > > >>>> we could think over this trace approach is really the best one to > > >>>> achieve the goal. Once it's agreed, the naming you suggested would > > >>>> make sense. > > >>> > > >>> At least for me it's a lot cleaner if a feature clearly expresses what > > >>> it actually does. Staring at PAGE_EXT_PIN_OWNER I initially had no clue. > > >>> I was assuming we would actually track (not trace!) all active FOLL_PIN > > >>> (not unref callers!). Maybe that makes it clearer why I'd prefer a > > >>> clearer name. > > >> > > >> I totally agree PagePinOwner is not 100% straightforward. I'm open for > > >> other better name. Currently we are discussing how we could generalize > > >> and whether it's useful or not. Depending on the discussion, the design/ > > >> interface as well as naming could be changed. No problem. > > > > > > PagePinOwner is just highly misleading. Because that's not what the > > > feature does. Having that said, i hope we'll get other opinions as well. > > > > FWIW, I think "page reference holder" would be clearer. PageRefHolder or > > PageReferenceHolder > > > > "Trace page reference holders on unref after migration of a page failed." > > Ah, crossed email. PageRefHolder. Yeah, sounds like better! David, I will change the naming to PageRefHolder and update the other code/comments to follow it. Do you have any objection? Otherwise, I'd like to post next version to make the work proceeding. Thanks.
