Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] sched: move content out of core files for loadaverage

[Charles Wang]

On 04/19/2013 07:43 AM, Paul Turner wrote:
> We could use a name along the lines of "load_index.c"; it calls to
> mind where we actually consume these values and (being specific) is
> less overloaded than load_avg.
Hmm... How about using "load_machine.c" "load_cpu.c" and "load_entity.c"?

Thanks,
Charles
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Paul Gortmaker
> <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] sched: move content out of core files for load average] On 18/04/2013 (Thu 23:06) Rakib Mullick wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Paul Gortmaker
> > > <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 13-04-18 07:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 11:33 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > > * Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Recent activity has had a focus on moving functionally related blocks of stuff
> > > > > > > out of sched/core.c into stand-alone files.  The code relating to load average
> > > > > > > calculations has grown significantly enough recently to warrant placing it in a
> > > > > > > separate file.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here we do that, and in doing so, we shed ~20k of code from sched/core.c (~10%).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A couple small static functions in the core sched.h header were also localized
> > > > > > > to their singular user in sched/fair.c at the same time, with the goal to also
> > > > > > > reduce the amount of "broadcast" content in that sched.h file.
> > > > > > Nice!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter, is this (and the naming of the new file) fine with you too?
> > > > > Yes and no.. that is I do like the change, but I don't like the
> > > > > filename. We have _waaaay_ too many different things we call load_avg.
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, I'm having a somewhat hard time coming up with a coherent
> > > > > alternative :/
> > > > Several of the relocated functions start their name with "calc_load..."
> > > > Does "calc_load.c" sound any better?
> > > How about sched_load.c ?
> > No, that doesn't work since it duplicates the path info in the file
> > name -- something that none of the other kernel/sched/*.c files do.
> > Do a "ls -1 kernel/sched" to see what I mean if it is not clear.
> >
> > I honestly didn't spend a lot of time thinking about the file name.
> > I chose load_avg.c since it had a parallel to the /proc/loadavg that
> > linux has had since the early 1990s.  I have no real attachment
> > to that name, but at the same time I'd like to avoid having name
> > choice become a bikeshedding event...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul.
> > --
> > 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/
> --
> 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/

--
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/