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

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>