linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] writeback: add general function domain_dirty_avail to calculate dirty and avail of domain

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 06:49:53 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
Cc: willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] writeback: add general function domain_dirty_avail
 to calculate dirty and avail of domain

Hello,

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:47:30AM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> +/*
> + * Dirty background will ignore pages being written as we're trying to
> + * decide whether to put more under writeback.
> + */
> +static void domain_dirty_avail(struct dirty_throttle_control *dtc, bool bg)

I wonder whether it'd be better if the bool arg is flipped to something like
`bool include_writeback` so that it's clear what the difference is between
the two. Also, do global_domain_dirty_avail() and wb_domain_dirty_avail()
have to be separate functions? They seem trivial enough to include into the
body of domain_dirty_avail(). Are they used directly elsewhere?

> +{
> +	struct dirty_throttle_control *gdtc = mdtc_gdtc(dtc);
> +
> +	if (gdtc)

I know this test is used elsewhere but it isn't the most intuitive. Would it
make sense to add dtc_is_global() (or dtc_is_gdtc()) helper instead?

> +		wb_domain_dirty_avail(dtc, bg);
> +	else
> +		global_domain_dirty_avail(dtc, bg);
> +}

Thanks.

-- 
tejun