Re: [PATCH] mm, compaction: properly signal and act upon lock and need_sched() contention

[Vlastimil Babka]

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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/