[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zl4G0tI_0CHKIWHh@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 08:09:22 -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 Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 02:39:18PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It's a general rule that wb should not be limited if the wb is in freerun state.
> So I think it's intuitive to obey the rule in both balance_wb_limits and it's
> caller in which case balance_wb_limits and it's caller should stop to do anything
> when freerun state of wb is first seen.
> But no insistant on this...
Hmm... can you at least add comments pointing out that if freerun, the
limits fields are invalid?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists