Re: [PATCH 0/3] scheduler include file reorganization
From: Namhyung Kim
Date: Thu Feb 14 2013 - 02:59:26 EST
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:19:37 -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:15:12 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> * Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:54:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > > * Clark Williams <williams@xxxxxxxxxx> 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!
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/