linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/20] arm/bL_switcher: Use kthread_run_on

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: <ZrDlZYoafHFpW4TS@e133380.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 15:44:53 +0100
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/20] arm/bL_switcher: Use kthread_run_on_cpu()

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 11:56:37PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Use the proper API instead of open coding it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm/common/bL_switcher.c | 10 ++++------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/common/bL_switcher.c b/arch/arm/common/bL_switcher.c
> index 9a9aa53547a6..d1e82a318e3b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/common/bL_switcher.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/common/bL_switcher.c
> @@ -307,13 +307,11 @@ static struct task_struct *bL_switcher_thread_create(int cpu, void *arg)
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *task;
>  
> -	task = kthread_create_on_node(bL_switcher_thread, arg,
> -				      cpu_to_node(cpu), "kswitcher_%d", cpu);
> -	if (!IS_ERR(task)) {
> -		kthread_bind(task, cpu);
> -		wake_up_process(task);
> -	} else
> +	task = kthread_run_on_cpu(bL_switcher_thread, arg,
> +				  cpu, "kswitcher_%d");
> +	if (IS_ERR(task))
>  		pr_err("%s failed for CPU %d\n", __func__, cpu);
> +
>  	return task;
>  }

It's ages since I worked on this, but it looks like this is pure
refactoring.  So far as I can see, it does the right thing, so, FWIW:

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>

I don't currently have hardware I can test this on, though.

Nico (Cc added) might just possibly have an opinion on it, though this
looks uncontroversial.

Cheers
---Dave