linux-kernel - Re: [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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e8de697b-e098-97cd-fe3c-800b59b2c7cf@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 10:56:23 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...pee.com>, axboe@...nel.dk
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-wbt: Cleanup some comments

Hi,

在 2025/02/12 11:00, Tang Yizhou 写道:
> 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.

Other than this clean up, the others are actually fix. Can you remove
this one and change the title to "Fix some comments"?

Thanks,
Kuai

>   		 */
>   		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);
>