Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-203582-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 v2 8/8] writeback: factor out balance_wb_limits to remove
 repeated code
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: willy@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
 linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240514125254.142203-1-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
 <20240514125254.142203-9-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
 <ZljGiunxmVAlW6EE@slm.duckdns.org>
 <cfbbcc80-7db1-8277-98ab-1f32c3a629ab@huaweicloud.com>
 <Zl4G0tI_0CHKIWHh@slm.duckdns.org>
From: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
Message-ID: <6d5e260e-4910-92d1-faf4-8aee0b78b16d@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 11:24:34 +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: <Zl4G0tI_0CHKIWHh@slm.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


on 6/4/2024 2:09 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 02:39:18PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>> Isn't this a bit nasty? The helper skips updating states because it knows
>>> the caller is not going to use them? I'm not sure the slight code reduction
>>> justifies the added subtlety.
>>
>> It's a general rule that wb should not be limited if the wb is in freerun state.
>> So I think it's intuitive to obey the rule in both balance_wb_limits and it's
>> caller in which case balance_wb_limits and it's caller should stop to do anything
>> when freerun state of wb is first seen.
>> But no insistant on this...
> 
> Hmm... can you at least add comments pointing out that if freerun, the
> limits fields are invalid?
Sure, will add it in next version. Thanks
> 
> Thanks.
>