Hi,
在 2025/02/12 11:00, Tang Yizhou 写道:
From: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@xxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
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);
