Re: [PATCH 02/34] mm, vmscan: move lru_lock to the node

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 07/13/2016 07:50 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:18:05PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:06:04PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt b/Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt
> > > > index b14abf217239..946e69103cdd 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt
> > > > @@ -267,11 +267,11 @@ When oom event notifier is registered, event will be delivered.
> > > >     Other lock order is following:
> > > >     PG_locked.
> > > >     mm->page_table_lock
> > > > -       zone->lru_lock
> > > > +       zone_lru_lock
> > >
> > > zone_lru_lock is a little confusing, can't we just call it
> > > node_lru_lock?
> >
> > It's a matter of perspective. People familiar with the VM already expect
> > a zone lock so will be looking for it. I can do a rename if you insist
> > but it may not actually help.
>
> I don't want to insist, but zone_ in the name can be confusing, as to
> leading us to think that the lru_lock is still in the zone

On the other hand, it suggests that the argument of the function is a 
zone. Passing a zone to something called "node_lru_lock()" would be more 
confusing to me. Also it's mostly a convenience wrapper to ease the 
transition, whose usage will likely diminish over time.

> If the rest of the reviewers are fine with, we don't need to rename

Yes, it's not worth the trouble.