On 05/12/2014 10:28 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
index 83ca6f9..b34ab7c 100644
--- a/mm/compaction.c
+++ b/mm/compaction.c
@@ -222,6 +222,27 @@ static bool compact_checklock_irqsave(spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long *flags,
return true;
}
+/*
+ * Similar to compact_checklock_irqsave() (see its comment) for places where
+ * a zone lock is not concerned.
+ *
+ * Returns false when compaction should abort.
+ */
I think we should have some sufficient commentary in the code that
describes why we do this.
Well I can of course mostly duplicate the comment of
compact_checklock_irqsave() instead of referring to it, if you think
that's better.
+static inline bool compact_check_resched(struct compact_control *cc)
+{
I'm not sure that compact_check_resched() is the appropriate name. Sure,
it specifies what the current implementation is, but what it's really
actually doing is determining when compaction should abort prematurely.
Something like compact_should_abort()?
I tried to be somewhat analogous to the name of
compact_checklock_irqsave(). compact_should_abort() doesn't indicate
that there might be a resched().
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>