linux-kernel - Re: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: <AD2AAwDtDgN4Fh3ZMJ2Tcap5.3.1616033658963.Hmail.wangqing@vivo.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:14:18 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From:   王擎 <wangqing@...o.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        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:Re: [PATCH] sched: swait: use wake_up_process() instead of wake_up_state()


>> 
>> * 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.

Using wake_up_process() is more simpler and friendly for beginners, 
and it is more convenient for analysis and statistics.