Re: [PATCH 02/10] writeback: add general function domain_dirty_avail to calculate dirty and avail of domain

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


on 5/2/2024 12:49 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:47:30AM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Dirty background will ignore pages being written as we're trying to
>> + * decide whether to put more under writeback.
>> + */
>> +static void domain_dirty_avail(struct dirty_throttle_control *dtc, bool bg)
> I wonder whether it'd be better if the bool arg is flipped to something like
> `bool include_writeback` so that it's clear what the difference is between
Sure, I rename 'bool bg' to 'bool include_writeback'.
> the two. Also, do global_domain_dirty_avail() and wb_domain_dirty_avail()
> have to be separate functions? They seem trivial enough to include into the
> body of domain_dirty_avail(). Are they used directly elsewhere?
I will fold global_domain_dirty_avail() and wb_domain_dirty_avail() and
just use domain_dirty_avail.
>> +{
>> +	struct dirty_throttle_control *gdtc = mdtc_gdtc(dtc);
>> +
>> +	if (gdtc)
> I know this test is used elsewhere but it isn't the most intuitive. Would it
> make sense to add dtc_is_global() (or dtc_is_gdtc()) helper instead?
Will add helper dtc_is_global().

>> +		wb_domain_dirty_avail(dtc, bg);
>> +	else
>> +		global_domain_dirty_avail(dtc, bg);
>> +}
> Thanks.

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux