From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] scheduler include file reorganization
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:59:20 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zjz7nx5z.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130213091937.5a226c5d@riff.lan> (Clark Williams's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:19:37 -0600")
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:19:37 -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:15:12 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>> * Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:54:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > > * Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I figured that was coming. :)
>> > >
>> > > ;-)
>> > >
>> > >> I'll look at it again and see about pulling the
>> > >> autogroup/cgroup stuff into it's own header. After that it's
>> > >> probably going to require some serious changes.
>> > >>
>> > >> Any suggestions?
>> > >
>> > > I'd suggest doing it as finegrained as possible - potentially
>> > > one concept at a time. I wouldn't mind a dozen small files in
>> > > include/linux/sched/ - possibly more.
>> >
>> > What about the .c files? AFAICS the sched/core.c and
>> > sched/fair.c are rather huge and contain various concepts
>> > which might be separated to their own files. It'd be better
>> > reorganizing them too IMHO.
>>
>> I'd be more careful about those, because there's various
>> scheduler patch-sets floating modifying them.
>>
>> sched.h is much more static and it is the one that actually gets
>> included in like 60% of all *other* .c files, adding a few
>> thousand lines to every .o compilation and causing measurable
>> compile time overhead ...
>>
>> So sched.h splitting is something we should really do, if
>> there's people interested in and capable of pulling it off.
>
> And since I'm one of the people that care about the RT patch (which
> modifies the scheduler files) I'll just start with baby steps and reorg
> the headers.
Understood. Thanks for the explanation!
Thanks,
Namhyung
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-14 7:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-07 15:46 [PATCH 0/3] scheduler include file reorganization Clark Williams
2013-02-07 18:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-07 19:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-07 19:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-07 21:08 ` Clark Williams
2013-02-08 14:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-08 14:58 ` Clark Williams
2013-02-11 9:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-13 1:29 ` Namhyung Kim
2013-02-13 9:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-13 15:19 ` Clark Williams
2013-02-14 7:59 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2013-02-16 3:40 ` Li Zefan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87zjz7nx5z.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com \
--to=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).