On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 9:01 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed 02-10-24 21:00:02, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> > From: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The name of the BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL macro is misleading, as it is not
> > only used in the bandwidth update functions wb_update_bandwidth() and
> > __wb_update_bandwidth(), but also in the dirty limit update function
> > domain_update_dirty_limit().
> >
> > Rename BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL to UPDATE_INTERVAL to make things clear.
> >
> > This patche doesn't introduce any behavioral changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Umm, I agree BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL may be confusing but UPDATE_INTERVAL does
> not seem much better to be honest. I actually have hard time coming up with
> a more descriptive name so what if we settled on updating the comment only
> instead of renaming to something not much better?
>
> Honza
Thank you for your review. I agree that UPDATE_INTERVAL is not a good
name. How about
renaming it to BW_DIRTYLIMIT_INTERVAL?
Yi
> > ---
> > mm/page-writeback.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> > index fcd4c1439cb9..a848e7f0719d 100644
> > --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> > +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> > @@ -54,9 +54,9 @@
> > #define DIRTY_POLL_THRESH (128 >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 10))
> >
> > /*
> > - * Estimate write bandwidth at 200ms intervals.
> > + * Estimate write bandwidth or update dirty limit at 200ms intervals.
> > */
> > -#define BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL max(HZ/5, 1)
> > +#define UPDATE_INTERVAL max(HZ/5, 1)
> >
> > #define RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT 10
> >
> > @@ -1331,11 +1331,11 @@ static void domain_update_dirty_limit(struct dirty_throttle_control *dtc,
> > /*
> > * check locklessly first to optimize away locking for the most time
> > */
> > - if (time_before(now, dom->dirty_limit_tstamp + BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
> > + if (time_before(now, dom->dirty_limit_tstamp + UPDATE_INTERVAL))
> > return;
> >
> > spin_lock(&dom->lock);
> > - if (time_after_eq(now, dom->dirty_limit_tstamp + BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL)) {
> > + if (time_after_eq(now, dom->dirty_limit_tstamp + UPDATE_INTERVAL)) {
> > update_dirty_limit(dtc);
> > dom->dirty_limit_tstamp = now;
> > }
> > @@ -1928,7 +1928,7 @@ static int balance_dirty_pages(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> > wb->dirty_exceeded = gdtc->dirty_exceeded ||
> > (mdtc && mdtc->dirty_exceeded);
> > if (time_is_before_jiffies(READ_ONCE(wb->bw_time_stamp) +
> > - BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
> > + UPDATE_INTERVAL))
> > __wb_update_bandwidth(gdtc, mdtc, true);
> >
> > /* throttle according to the chosen dtc */
> > @@ -2705,7 +2705,7 @@ int do_writepages(struct address_space *mapping, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > * writeback bandwidth is updated once in a while.
> > */
> > if (time_is_before_jiffies(READ_ONCE(wb->bw_time_stamp) +
> > - BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
> > + UPDATE_INTERVAL))
> > wb_update_bandwidth(wb);
> > return ret;
> > }
> > @@ -3057,14 +3057,14 @@ static void wb_inode_writeback_end(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> > atomic_dec(&wb->writeback_inodes);
> > /*
> > * Make sure estimate of writeback throughput gets updated after
> > - * writeback completed. We delay the update by BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL
> > + * writeback completed. We delay the update by UPDATE_INTERVAL
> > * (which is the interval other bandwidth updates use for batching) so
> > * that if multiple inodes end writeback at a similar time, they get
> > * batched into one bandwidth update.
> > */
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&wb->work_lock, flags);
> > if (test_bit(WB_registered, &wb->state))
> > - queue_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->bw_dwork, BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL);
> > + queue_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->bw_dwork, UPDATE_INTERVAL);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wb->work_lock, flags);
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
> >
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
> SUSE Labs, CR
