On 11/8/23 02:28, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (23/11/07 15:08), Ankur Arora wrote: > [..] >> +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c >> @@ -2029,7 +2029,6 @@ static unsigned long __zs_compact(struct zs_pool *pool, >> dst_zspage = NULL; >> >> spin_unlock(&pool->lock); >> - cond_resched(); >> spin_lock(&pool->lock); >> } >> } > > I'd personally prefer to have a comment explaining why we do that > spin_unlock/spin_lock sequence, which may look confusing to people. Wonder if it would make sense to have a lock operation that does the unlock/lock as a self-documenting thing, and maybe could also be optimized to first check if there's a actually a need for it (because TIF_NEED_RESCHED or lock is contended). > Maybe would make sense to put a nice comment in all similar cases. > For instance: > > rcu_read_unlock(); > - cond_resched(); > rcu_read_lock();
