[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFHbdojO5TtztzEn@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:35:34 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Wang Qing <wangqing@...o.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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 10:46:18AM +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.
It's still pointless churn IMO.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists