linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] ext4: use correct criteria name instead stale integer number in comment

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <383b74d7-3d9c-9140-29d7-b62023098c27@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:20:15 +0800
From: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] ext4: use correct criteria name instead stale
 integer number in comment



on 4/24/2024 5:43 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 23-04-24 20:40:45, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>> Use correct criteria name instead stale integer number in comment
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
> 
> You have cleaned up the superfluous "CR=" bits in several places but still
> left them is couple more :). See below:
Sorry, It seems that I mis-understand what you mean in last reply. I will
clean up all unnecessary stuff like "CR=" in next version. Thanks for the
feedback.

Kemeng
> 
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> index 5acf413808a2..71b2f9a18875 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> @@ -1131,8 +1131,9 @@ static void ext4_mb_choose_next_group(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
>>  		ext4_mb_choose_next_group_best_avail(ac, new_cr, group);
>>  	} else {
>>  		/*
>> -		 * TODO: For CR=2, we can arrange groups in an rb tree sorted by
>> -		 * bb_free. But until that happens, we should never come here.
>> +		 * TODO: For CR=CR_GOAL_LEN_SLOW, we can arrange groups in an
> 			     ^^^ Still you have left these superfluous
> "CR=" bits here.
>  
>> +		 * rb tree sorted by bb_free. But until that happens, we should
>> +		 * never come here.
>>  		 */
>>  		WARN_ON(1);
>>  	}
>> @@ -3445,10 +3446,11 @@ static int ext4_mb_init_backend(struct super_block *sb)
>>  	}
>>  	if (sbi->s_mb_prefetch > ext4_get_groups_count(sb))
>>  		sbi->s_mb_prefetch = ext4_get_groups_count(sb);
>> -	/* now many real IOs to prefetch within a single allocation at cr=0
>> -	 * given cr=0 is an CPU-related optimization we shouldn't try to
>> -	 * load too many groups, at some point we should start to use what
>> -	 * we've got in memory.
>> +	/*
>> +	 * now many real IOs to prefetch within a single allocation at
>> +	 * cr=CR_POWER2_ALIGNED. Given cr=CR_POWER2_ALIGNED is an CPU-related
>            ^^^  and here               ^^^
> 
>> +	 * optimization we shouldn't try to load too many groups, at some point
>> +	 * we should start to use what we've got in memory.
>>  	 * with an average random access time 5ms, it'd take a second to get
>>  	 * 200 groups (* N with flex_bg), so let's make this limit 4
>>  	 */
> 
> 								Honza
>