From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E307C433E0 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:41:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0AB164F6C for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:41:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232503AbhCQQki (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:40:38 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:51516 "EHLO galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232677AbhCQQkc (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:40:32 -0400 From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1615993065; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Hfp5FbCwf7b9zWj6otTTxV0pYwGHbBq667l/8N72UkU=; b=hxaGbQoVqqlJotXLxClA59ivKAxSwdz4nDJymE0VWp0zoqQ0s0qH8rp77kycGjDvYaX0gp JvesTJwMgUT8IV+7w/4C7R1X12yyzLCLsgMkyeFp+hSqTctYc+rSpgPSFH0zJNKqCVaBsg qlZz0cS1mhzJRQe3fOD3pX0xUQoaX+Yk3ktJjHYkDjQhZkQMG5tEdiYCyB5gNt0EyBiUH/ ZRPJ1BS+kvkPViOwHhnKc21tY5SFIT9r8yg6/EJ6NS7H9u2Zni+0diL3Ug3VZK+vEjunW/ w29sYMmuEmNAkDCaPxD1cslHCP93lrZiCnt6tyQ0ftSY4X9VBfDFqtjCJii6JA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1615993065; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Hfp5FbCwf7b9zWj6otTTxV0pYwGHbBq667l/8N72UkU=; b=Dq1wqIpvzIciBcZ8+FzAd5+TZlpfQvwY/zfr+V+we1N07ssXmyolKbEalbJ6Qm1tWQ8JCY WAftVYyCeXnTi+CQ== To: Mike Galbraith , Ingo Molnar Cc: Wang Qing , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: swait: use wake_up_process() instead of wake_up_state() In-Reply-To: <16b579d7e48b7ae58b77b9eaa9757566f57408b8.camel@gmx.de> References: <1615893602-22260-1-git-send-email-wangqing@vivo.com> <4cb1a9ae15c414435020630cf6362163ddda1550.camel@gmx.de> <20210317094618.GA1724119@gmail.com> <16b579d7e48b7ae58b77b9eaa9757566f57408b8.camel@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:57:45 +0100 Message-ID: <87y2elygie.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 17 2021 at 11:41, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 10:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Mike Galbraith 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" :) Which begs the reply "Why should we?" just for 10 bytes less of kernel text :)