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

[Rakib Mullick]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:13 AM, 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 understand your point, so just take sched out of it. I was just
trying to give a hint, if it could help.

> 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...
>
I also didn't spend a lot of time thinking about file name. What I
said, it's from intuition and what I've seen so far. Name, it should
be simple, clear and should suggest what it's dealing with. But I also
think that,  name doesn't make things different, how it works - that's
what is important.

Thanks,
Rakib
--
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/