| Message ID | 20221123060401.20392-12-shikemeng@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | A few bugfix and cleanup patches for blk-throttle | expand |
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:04:01PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> Use more siutable time_after check for update slice_start
Why is it more suitable?
on 11/24/2022 2:29 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:04:01PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote: >> Use more siutable time_after check for update slice_start > > Why is it more suitable? There is no need to assign tg->slice_start[rw] to start when they are equal already. So time_after seems more suitable here.
diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c index 82fe23e79b4b..69eeff764dee 100644 --- a/block/blk-throttle.c +++ b/block/blk-throttle.c @@ -635,7 +635,7 @@ static inline void throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit(struct throtl_grp *tg, * that bandwidth. Do try to make use of that bandwidth while giving * credit. */ - if (time_after_eq(start, tg->slice_start[rw])) + if (time_after(start, tg->slice_start[rw])) tg->slice_start[rw] = start; tg->slice_end[rw] = jiffies + tg->td->throtl_slice;
Use more siutable time_after check for update slice_start Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huawei.com> --- block/blk-throttle.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)