Re: [PATCH 18/34] mm: rename NR_ANON_PAGES to NR_ANON_MAPPED

From: Minchan Kim
Date: Wed Jul 13 2016 - 21:26:46 EST

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:37:01PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:04:15AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Obviously I found the new names clearer but I was thinking a lot at the
> > > time about mapped vs unmapped due to looking closely at both reclaim and
> > > [f|m]advise functions at the time. I found it mildly irksome to switch
> > > between the semantics of file/anon when looking at the vmstat updates.
> >
> > I can see that. It all depends on whether you consider mapping state
> > or page type the more fundamental attribute, and coming from the
> > mapping perspective those new names make sense as well.
> >
> From a reclaim perspective, I consider the mapped state to be more
> important. This is particularly true when the advise calls are taken
> into account. For example, madvise unmaps the pages without affecting
> memory residency (distinct from RSS) without aging. fadvise ignores mapped
> pages so the mapped state is very important for advise hints. Similarly,
> the mapped state can affect how the pages are aged as mapped pages affect
> slab scan rates and incur TLB flushes on unmap. I guess I've been thinking
> about mapped/unmapped a lot recently which pushed me towards distinct naming.
> > However, that leaves the disconnect between the enum name and what we
> > print to userspace. I find myself having to associate those quite a
> > lot to find all the sites that modify a given /proc/vmstat item, and
> > that's a bit of a pain if the names don't match.
> >
> I was tempted to rename userspace what is printed to vmstat as well but
> worried about breaking tools that parse it.
> > I don't care strongly enough to cause a respin of half the series, and
> > it's not your problem that I waited until the last revision went into
> > mmots to review and comment. But if you agreed to a revert, would you
> > consider tacking on a revert patch at the end of the series?
> >
> In this case, I'm going to ask the other people on the cc for a
> tie-breaker. If someone else prefers the old names then I'm happy for
> your patch to be applied on top with my ack instead of respinning the
> whole series.
> Anyone for a tie breaker?

I have thought it from reclaim perspective for a long time so I tempted to
change the naming like new one but there is no big justification for that.
In this chance, I vote new name.