On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 03:12:21PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>
>
> on 3/20/2024 11:15 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 07:02:22PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> >> We never use gdtc->dom set with GDTC_INIT_NO_WB, just remove unneeded
> >> GDTC_INIT_NO_WB
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ...
> >> void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdirty)
> >> {
> >> - struct dirty_throttle_control gdtc = { GDTC_INIT_NO_WB };
> >> + struct dirty_throttle_control gdtc = { };
> >
> > Even if it's currently not referenced, wouldn't it still be better to always
> > guarantee that a dtc's dom is always initialized? I'm not sure what we get
> > by removing this.
> As we explicitly use GDTC_INIT_NO_WB to set global_wb_domain before
> calculating dirty limit with domain_dirty_limits, I intuitively think the dirty
> limit calculation in domain_dirty_limits is related to global_wb_domain when
> CONFIG_WRITEBACK_CGROUP is enabled while the truth is not. So this is a little
> confusing to me.
> Would it be acceptable to you that we keep useing GDTC_INIT_NO_WB but
> define GDTC_INIT_NO_WB to null fow now and redefine GDTC_INIT_NO_WB when some
> member of gdtc is really needed.
> Of couse I'm not insistent on this. Would like to hear you suggestion. Thanks!
Ah, I see. In that case, the proposed change of removing GDTC_INIT_NO_WB
looks good to me.
Thanks.
--
tejun
