Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 May 2014 10:50:26 +0200 | From | Vlastimil Babka <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm, compaction: properly signal and act upon lock and need_sched() contention |
| |
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().
| |