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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b044dac2f59bf351fa213096c430a197ec5d4bd4.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:03:46 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     王擎 <wangqing@...o.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 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()

On Thu, 2021-03-18 at 10:14 +0800, 王擎 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.
>
> Using wake_up_process() is more simpler and friendly for beginners,
> and it is more convenient for analysis and statistics.

If that's your argument, that should have been in the change log. That
said, it's IMO still pretty darn weak. When presenting a patch, do what
Ingo did, show the technical merit, that's what will determine whether
it flies or dies.

	-Mike