On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 10:27:07 +0100 "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/4/26 16:13, SeongJae Park wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 13:01:45 +0000 Dmitry Ilvokhin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 05:50:34PM -0800, SeongJae Park wrote: > >> > On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 14:25:55 +0000 Dmitry Ilvokhin <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 02:37:43PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> > > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 15:10:03 +0100 "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > On 2/27/26 17:00, Dmitry Ilvokhin wrote: > >> > > > > > This intentionally breaks direct users of zone->lock at compile > >> > > > > > time so > >> > > > > > all call sites are converted to the zone lock wrappers. Without > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > rename, present and future out-of-tree code could continue using > >> > > > > > spin_lock(&zone->lock) and bypass the wrappers and tracing > >> > > > > > infrastructure. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > No functional change intended. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Suggested-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin <[email protected]> > >> > > > > > Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]> > >> > > > > > Acked-by: SeongJae Park <[email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I see some more instances of 'zone->lock' in comments in > >> > > > > include/linux/mmzone.h and under Documentation/ but otherwise LGTM. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > I fixed (most of) that in the previous version but my fix was lost. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for the fixups, Andrew. > >> > > > >> > > I still see a few 'zone->lock' references in Documentation remain on > >> > > mm-new. This patch cleans them up, as noted by Vlastimil. > >> > > > >> > > I'm happy to adjust this patch if anything else needs attention. > >> > > > >> > > From 9142d5a8b60038fa424a6033253960682e5a51f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> > > From: Dmitry Ilvokhin <[email protected]> > >> > > Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 06:13:13 -0800 > >> > > Subject: [PATCH] mm: fix remaining zone->lock references > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin <[email protected]> > >> > > --- > >> > > Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst | 4 ++-- > >> > > Documentation/trace/events-kmem.rst | 8 ++++---- > >> > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > > > >> > > diff --git a/Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst > >> > > b/Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst > >> > > index b76183545e5b..e344f93515b6 100644 > >> > > --- a/Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst > >> > > +++ b/Documentation/mm/physical_memory.rst > >> > > @@ -500,11 +500,11 @@ General > >> > > ``nr_isolate_pageblock`` > >> > > Number of isolated pageblocks. It is used to solve incorrect > >> > > freepage counting > >> > > problem due to racy retrieving migratetype of pageblock. Protected > >> > > by > >> > > - ``zone->lock``. Defined only when ``CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION`` is > >> > > enabled. > >> > > + ``zone_lock``. Defined only when ``CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION`` is > >> > > enabled. > >> > > >> > Dmitry's original patch [1] was doing 's/zone->lock/zone->_lock/', which > >> > aligns > >> > to my expectation. But this patch is doing 's/zone->lock/zone_lock/'. > >> > Same > >> > for the rest of this patch. > >> > > >> > I was initially thinking this is just a mistake, but I also found Andrew > >> > is > >> > doing same change [2], so I'm bit confused. Is this an intentional > >> > change? > >> > > >> > [1] > >> > https://lore.kernel.org/d61500c5784c64e971f4d328c57639303c475f81.1772206930.gi...@ilvokhin.com > >> > [2] > >> > https://lore.kernel.org/[email protected] > >> > > >> > >> Good catch, thanks for pointing this out, SJ. > >> > >> Originally the mechanical rename was indeed zone->lock -> zone->_lock. > >> However, in Documentation I intentionally switched references to > >> zone_lock instead of zone->_lock. The reasoning is that _lock is now an > >> internal implementation detail, and direct access is discouraged. The > >> intended interface is via the zone_lock_*() / zone_unlock_*() wrappers, > >> so referencing zone_lock in documentation felt more appropriate than > >> mentioning the private struct field (zone->_lock). > > > > Thank you for this nice and kind clarification, Dmitry! I agree mentioning > > zone_[un]lock_*() helpers instead of the hidden member (zone->_lock) can be > > better. > > > > But, I'm concerned if people like me might not aware the intention under > > 'zone_lock'. If there is a well-known convention that allows people to > > know it > > is for 'zone_[un]lock_*()' helpers, making it more clear would be nice, in > > my > > humble opinion. If there is such a convention but I'm just missing it, > > please > > ignore. If I'm not, for eaxmaple, > > > > "protected by ``zone->lock``" could be re-wrote to > > "protected by ``zone_[un]lock_*()`` locking helpers" or, > > "protected by zone lock helper functions (``zone_[un]lock_*()``)" ? > > > >> > >> That said, I agree this creates inconsistency with the mechanical > >> rename, and I'm happy to adjust either way: either consistently refer > >> to the wrapper API, or keep documentation aligned with zone->_lock. > >> > >> I slightly prefer referring to the wrapper API, but don't have a strong > >> preference as long as we're consistent. > > > > I also think both approaches are good. But for the wrapper approach, I > > think > > giving more contexts rather than just ``zone_lock`` to readers would be > > nice. > > Grep tells me that we also have comments mentioning simply "zone lock", btw. > And it's also a term used often in informal conversations. Maybe we could > just standardize on that in comments/documentations as it's easier to read. > Discovering that the field is called _lock and that wrappers should be used, > is hopefully not that difficult. Sounds good, that also works for me. Thanks, SJ
