linux-kernel - [PATCH] blk-wbt: Cleanup some comments

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20250212030055.407090-1-yizhou.tang@shopee.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 11:00:55 +0800
From: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...pee.com>
To: axboe@...nel.dk
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...pee.com>
Subject: [PATCH] blk-wbt: Cleanup some comments

From: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...pee.com>

wbt_wait() no longer uses a spinlock as a parameter. Update the
function comments accordingly.

Additionally, revise other comments to ensure they align with the
actual implementation.

Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...pee.com>
---
 block/blk-wbt.c | 17 +++++++----------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-wbt.c b/block/blk-wbt.c
index 6dfc659d22e2..f1754d07f7e0 100644
--- a/block/blk-wbt.c
+++ b/block/blk-wbt.c
@@ -136,8 +136,9 @@ enum {
 	RWB_MIN_WRITE_SAMPLES	= 3,
 
 	/*
-	 * If we have this number of consecutive windows with not enough
-	 * information to scale up or down, scale up.
+	 * If we have this number of consecutive windows without enough
+	 * information to scale up or down, slowly return to center state
+	 * (step == 0).
 	 */
 	RWB_UNKNOWN_BUMP	= 5,
 };
@@ -446,9 +447,9 @@ static void wb_timer_fn(struct blk_stat_callback *cb)
 		break;
 	case LAT_UNKNOWN_WRITES:
 		/*
-		 * We started a the center step, but don't have a valid
-		 * read/write sample, but we do have writes going on.
-		 * Allow step to go negative, to increase write perf.
+		 * We don't have a valid read/write sample, but we do have
+		 * writes going on. Allow step to go negative, to increase
+		 * write performance.
 		 */
 		scale_up(rwb);
 		break;
@@ -638,11 +639,7 @@ static void wbt_cleanup(struct rq_qos *rqos, struct bio *bio)
 	__wbt_done(rqos, flags);
 }
 
-/*
- * May sleep, if we have exceeded the writeback limits. Caller can pass
- * in an irq held spinlock, if it holds one when calling this function.
- * If we do sleep, we'll release and re-grab it.
- */
+/* May sleep, if we have exceeded the writeback limits. */
 static void wbt_wait(struct rq_qos *rqos, struct bio *bio)
 {
 	struct rq_wb *rwb = RQWB(rqos);
-- 
2.25.1