Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-109716-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] writeback: remove unneeded GDTC_INIT_NO_WB
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 willy@infradead.org, bfoster@redhat.com, jack@suse.cz, dsterba@suse.com,
 mjguzik@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org
References: <20240320110222.6564-1-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
 <20240320110222.6564-7-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
 <Zfr9my_tfxO-N6HS@mtj.duckdns.org>
From: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
Message-ID: <becdb16b-a318-ec05-61d2-d190541ae997@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:12:21 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.5.0
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Zfr9my_tfxO-N6HS@mtj.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


on 3/20/2024 11:15 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 07:02:22PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>> We never use gdtc->dom set with GDTC_INIT_NO_WB, just remove unneeded
>> GDTC_INIT_NO_WB
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
> ...
>>  void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdirty)
>>  {
>> -	struct dirty_throttle_control gdtc = { GDTC_INIT_NO_WB };
>> +	struct dirty_throttle_control gdtc = { };
> 
> Even if it's currently not referenced, wouldn't it still be better to always
> guarantee that a dtc's dom is always initialized? I'm not sure what we get
> by removing this.
As we explicitly use GDTC_INIT_NO_WB to set global_wb_domain before
calculating dirty limit with domain_dirty_limits, I intuitively think the dirty
limit calculation in domain_dirty_limits is related to global_wb_domain when
CONFIG_WRITEBACK_CGROUP is enabled while the truth is not. So this is a little
confusing to me.
Would it be acceptable to you that we keep useing GDTC_INIT_NO_WB but
define GDTC_INIT_NO_WB to null fow now and redefine GDTC_INIT_NO_WB when some
member of gdtc is really needed.
Of couse I'm not insistent on this. Would like to hear you suggestion. Thanks!

> 
> Thanks.
>