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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <16b579d7e48b7ae58b77b9eaa9757566f57408b8.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:41:21 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     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, 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" :)

	-Mike