On 9/7/2022 6:03 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 12:15:19PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> + // We had CBs in the bypass list before. There is nothing else to do if:
>>>> + // There were only non-lazy CBs before, in this case, the bypass timer
>>>
>>> Kind of misleading. I would replace "There were only non-lazy CBs before" with
>>> "There was at least one non-lazy CBs before".
>>
>> I really mean "There were only non-lazy CBs ever queued in the bypass list
>> before". That's the bypass_is_lazy variable. So I did not fully understand your
>> suggested comment change.
>
> I may well be missing something but to me it seems that:
>
> bypass_is_lazy = all bypass callbacks are lazy
> !bypass_is_lazy = there is at least one non-lazy bypass callback
>
> And indeed as long as there is at least one non-lazy callback, we don't
> want to rely on the LAZY timer.
>
> Am I overlooking something?
No you are not over looking and you are very right that I may need to change the
comment.
To clarify my intent, a wake up or timer adjustment needs to be done only if:
1. Bypass list was fully empty before (this is the first bypass list entry).
Or both the below conditions are met:
1. Bypass list had only lazy CBs before.
2. The new CB is non-lazy.
Instead of saying, "nothing needs to be done if...", I will change it to:
// A wake up of the grace period kthread or timer adjustment needs to
// be done only if:
// 1. Bypass list was empty before (this is the first bypass queue).
// Or, both the below conditions are met:
// 1. Bypass list had only lazy CBs before.
// 2. The new CB is non-lazy.
That sounds less confusing...
Or, I can just make the edit you suggested... let me know either way!
Thanks!
- Joel
