Re: [PATCH 0/3] scheduler include file reorganization

[Li Zefan]

On 2013/2/13 17:15, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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.
> 

While previously working on a cgroup patchset that also touched sched.h,
I noticed some lines can be moved to kernel/sched/sched.h. I've cooked
up a patchset to do that, and it results in reduction of 200+ lines in
sched.h. I'll do some compile testing before sending it out.

--
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/