On 4/30/24 8:57 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> >> @@ -2972,7 +2972,7 @@ int __ksm_enter(struct mm_struct *mm) >> struct mm_slot *slot; >> int needs_wakeup; >> - ksm_slot = mm_slot_alloc(mm_slot_cache); >> + ksm_slot = mm_slot_alloc(ksm_slot_cache); > > Similarly, this makes the code more confusion. The pattern in khugepaged is similarly: > > mm_slot = mm_slot_alloc(mm_slot_cache); Could we rename it to khg_mm_slot_cache in khugepaged? > > I don't think we want these renamings. > > E.g., "ksm_mm_slot_cache" might be a bit better than "mm_slot_cache". But then, we are in KSM code ... so I don't really see an improvement. Thanks for comments and sorry for response late. yes, ksm_mm_slot_cache is better even in KSM code. As a cscope/tag dependency patient, this change could reduce much of confusing in name searching. And that's why a one-side change satisfies me. Yes, maybe better naming could make it more readable, any more further help? :) Thanks a lot! Alex
