linux-kernel - [PATCH v3 75/76] mm: list_lru: rename list_lru_per_memcg to list_lru

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210914072938.6440-76-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:29:37 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To:     willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        guro@...com, shy828301@...il.com, alexs@...nel.org,
        richard.weiyang@...il.com, david@...morbit.com,
        trond.myklebust@...merspace.com, anna.schumaker@...app.com
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        zhengqi.arch@...edance.com, duanxiongchun@...edance.com,
        fam.zheng@...edance.com, smuchun@...il.com,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 75/76] mm: list_lru: rename list_lru_per_memcg to list_lru_memcg

Before now, the name of list_lru_memcg was occupied. Since previous
patch, the name is free. So rename list_lru_per_memcg to list_lru_memcg,
it is more brief.

Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
---
 include/linux/list_lru.h |  2 +-
 mm/list_lru.c            | 20 ++++++++++----------
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/list_lru.h b/include/linux/list_lru.h
index c423be3cf2d3..d654c8e3d262 100644
--- a/include/linux/list_lru.h
+++ b/include/linux/list_lru.h
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ struct list_lru_one {
 	long			nr_items;
 };
 
-struct list_lru_per_memcg {
+struct list_lru_memcg {
 	struct rcu_head		rcu;
 	/* array of per cgroup per node lists, indexed by node id */
 	struct list_lru_one	nodes[];
diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
index 1202519aeb31..371097ee2485 100644
--- a/mm/list_lru.c
+++ b/mm/list_lru.c
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static inline struct list_lru_one *
 list_lru_from_memcg_idx(struct list_lru *lru, int nid, int idx)
 {
 	if (list_lru_memcg_aware(lru) && idx >= 0) {
-		struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru = xa_load(&lru->xa, idx);
+		struct list_lru_memcg *mlru = xa_load(&lru->xa, idx);
 
 		return mlru ? &mlru->nodes[nid] : NULL;
 	}
@@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ unsigned long list_lru_walk_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
 	if (*nr_to_walk > 0 && list_lru_memcg_aware(lru)) {
-		struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru;
+		struct list_lru_memcg *mlru;
 		unsigned long index;
 
 		xa_for_each(&lru->xa, index, mlru) {
@@ -335,10 +335,10 @@ static void init_one_lru(struct list_lru_one *l)
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
-static struct list_lru_per_memcg *memcg_list_lru_alloc(gfp_t gfp)
+static struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_list_lru_alloc(gfp_t gfp)
 {
 	int nid;
-	struct list_lru_per_memcg *lru;
+	struct list_lru_memcg *lru;
 
 	lru = kmalloc(struct_size(lru, nodes, nr_node_ids), gfp);
 	if (!lru)
@@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ static struct list_lru_per_memcg *memcg_list_lru_alloc(gfp_t gfp)
 
 static void memcg_list_lru_free(struct list_lru *lru, int src_idx)
 {
-	struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru = xa_erase_irq(&lru->xa, src_idx);
+	struct list_lru_memcg *mlru = xa_erase_irq(&lru->xa, src_idx);
 
 	/*
 	 * The __list_lru_walk_one() can walk the list of this node.
@@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ static void memcg_init_list_lru(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_aware)
 static void memcg_destroy_list_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
 {
 	XA_STATE(xas, &lru->xa, 0);
-	struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru;
+	struct list_lru_memcg *mlru;
 
 	if (!list_lru_memcg_aware(lru))
 		return;
@@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ int list_lru_memcg_alloc(struct list_lru *lru, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t g
 	int i;
 
 	struct list_lru_memcg_table {
-		struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru;
+		struct list_lru_memcg *mlru;
 		struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
 	} *table;
 
@@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ int list_lru_memcg_alloc(struct list_lru *lru, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t g
 		return 0;
 
 	/*
-	 * The allocated list_lru_per_memcg array is not accounted directly.
+	 * The allocated list_lru_memcg array is not accounted directly.
 	 * Moreover, it should not come from DMA buffer and is not readily
 	 * reclaimable. So those GFP bits should be masked off.
 	 */
@@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ int list_lru_memcg_alloc(struct list_lru *lru, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t g
 	/*
 	 * Because the list_lru can be reparented to the parent cgroup's
 	 * list_lru, we should make sure that this cgroup and all its
-	 * ancestors have allocated list_lru_per_memcg.
+	 * ancestors have allocated list_lru_memcg.
 	 */
 	for (i = 0; memcg; memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg), i++) {
 		if (memcg_list_lru_skip_alloc(lru, memcg))
@@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ int list_lru_memcg_alloc(struct list_lru *lru, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t g
 	xas_lock_irqsave(&xas, flags);
 	while (i--) {
 		int index = memcg_cache_id(table[i].memcg);
-		struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru = table[i].mlru;
+		struct list_lru_memcg *mlru = table[i].mlru;
 
 		xas_set(&xas, index);
 retry:
-- 
2.11.0