[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231221122233.GC17956@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:22:33 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/17] writeback: Factor writeback_get_batch() out of
write_cache_pages()
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 12:17:43PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > +static void writeback_get_batch(struct address_space *mapping,
> > + struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > +{
> > + folio_batch_release(&wbc->fbatch);
> > + cond_resched();
>
> I'd prefer to have cond_resched() explicitely in the writeback loop instead
> of hidden here in writeback_get_batch() where it logically does not make
> too much sense to me...
Based on the final state after this series, where would you place it?
(That beeing said there is a discussion underway on lkml to maybe
kill cond_resched entirely as part of sorting out the preemption
model mess, at that point this would become a moot point anyway)
> > } else {
> > - index = wbc->range_start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + wbc->index = wbc->range_start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > end = wbc->range_end >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > }
>
> Maybe we should have:
> end = wbc_end(wbc);
>
> when we have the helper? But I guess this gets cleaned up in later patches
> anyway so whatever.
Yeah, this end just goes away. I can convert it here, but that feels
like pointless churn to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists