On 3/5/26 19:59, Dmitry Ilvokhin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 06:16:26PM +0000, Dmitry Ilvokhin wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 10:27:07AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) 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. >> >> Thanks for the suggestion, Vlastimil. That sounds reasonable to me as >> well. I'll update the comments and documentation to consistently use >> "zone lock". > > Following the suggestion from SJ and Vlastimil, I prepared fixup to > standardize documentation and comments on the term "zone lock". > > The patch is based on top of the current mm-new. > > Andrew, please let me know if you would prefer a respin of the series > instead. > > From 267cda3e0e160f97b346009bc48819bfeed92e52 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Dmitry Ilvokhin <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2026 10:36:17 -0800 > Subject: [PATCH] mm: documentation: standardize on "zone lock" terminology > > During review of the zone lock tracing series it was suggested to > standardize documentation and comments on the term "zone lock" > instead of using zone_lock or referring to the internal field > zone->_lock. > > Update references accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <[email protected]> Thanks!
