linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: swait: use wake_up_process() instead of wake_up

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87y2elygie.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:57:45 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Wang Qing <wangqing@...o.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: swait: use wake_up_process() instead of wake_up_state()

On Wed, Mar 17 2021 at 11:41, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 10:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 19:20 +0800, Wang Qing wrote:
>> > > Why not just use wake_up_process().
>> >
>> > IMO this is not an improvement.  There are other places where explicit
>> > TASK_NORMAL is used as well, and they're all perfectly clear as is.
>>
>> Arguably those could all be converted to wake_up_process() as well.
>> It's a very small kernel code size optimization. There's about 3 such
>> places, could be converted in a single patch.
>
> I still prefer the way it sits, but that's certainlyly a heck of a lot
> better change justification than "why not" :)

Which begs the reply "Why should we?" just for 10 bytes less of kernel
text :)