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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOB9oObJ6O374EnThRs4FSchTZeJ3v_153mVHCgXK8EOOGpCnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:03:45 +0800
From: Yizhou Tang <tangyeechou@...il.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...pee.com>, axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-wbt: Cleanup some comments

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 10:56 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

Will do.

Thanks
Yi

> >                */
> >               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);
> >
>
>