Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:51:13 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/9] sched: add schedule_timeout_idle() |
| |
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.
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |