On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 01:33:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 22-03-16 13:23:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:00:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > extern signed long schedule_timeout_interruptible(signed long timeout);
> > > extern signed long schedule_timeout_killable(signed long timeout);
> > > extern signed long schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(signed long timeout);
> > > +extern signed long schedule_timeout_idle(signed long timeout);
> >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Like schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(), except this task will not contribute
> > > + * to load average.
> > > + */
> > > +signed long __sched schedule_timeout_idle(signed long timeout)
> > > +{
> > > + __set_current_state(TASK_IDLE);
> > > + return schedule_timeout(timeout);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule_timeout_idle);
> >
> > Yes we have 3 such other wrappers, but I've gotta ask: why? They seem
> > pretty pointless.
>
> It seems it is just too easy to miss the __set_current_state (I am
> talking from my own experience).
Well, that's what you get; if you call schedule() and forget to set a
blocking state you also don't block, where the problem?
> This also seems to be a pretty common
> pattern so why not wrap it under a common call.
It just seems extremely silly to create a (out-of-line even) function
for a store and a call.
> > Why not kill the lot?
>
> We have over 400 users, would it be much better if we open code all of
> them? It doesn't sound like a huge win to me.
Dunno, changing them around isn't much work, we've got coccinelle for
that.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>