[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZljGiunxmVAlW6EE@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 08:33:46 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
Cc: willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] writeback: factor out balance_wb_limits to remove
repeated code
Hello,
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 08:52:54PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> +static void balance_wb_limits(struct dirty_throttle_control *dtc,
> + bool strictlimit)
> +{
> + wb_dirty_freerun(dtc, strictlimit);
> + if (dtc->freerun)
> + return;
> +
> + wb_dirty_exceeded(dtc, strictlimit);
> + wb_position_ratio(dtc);
> +}
..
> @@ -1869,12 +1880,9 @@ static int balance_dirty_pages(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> * Calculate global domain's pos_ratio and select the
> * global dtc by default.
> */
> - wb_dirty_freerun(gdtc, strictlimit);
> + balance_wb_limits(gdtc, strictlimit);
> if (gdtc->freerun)
> goto free_running;
> -
> - wb_dirty_exceeded(gdtc, strictlimit);
> - wb_position_ratio(gdtc);
> sdtc = gdtc;
Isn't this a bit nasty? The helper skips updating states because it knows
the caller is not going to use them? I'm not sure the slight code reduction
justifies the added subtlety.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists