Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] sched/fair.c: remove "power" from struct numa_stats

[Mike Galbraith]

On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 23:18 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: 
> On Tue, 27 May 2014, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 18:19 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: 
> > > 
> > > @@ -1046,7 +1046,7 @@ static void update_numa_stats(struct numa_stats *ns, int nid)
> > >  
> > >  		ns->nr_running += rq->nr_running;
> > >  		ns->load += weighted_cpuload(cpu);
> > > -		ns->power += power_of(cpu);
> > > +		ns->compute_capacity += power_of(cpu);
> > 
> > power_of(cpu) as a capacity input looks odd now.. 
> > 
> > > @@ -1062,9 +1062,10 @@ static void update_numa_stats(struct numa_stats *ns, int nid)
> > >  	if (!cpus)
> > >  		return;
> > >  
> > > -	ns->load = (ns->load * SCHED_POWER_SCALE) / ns->power;
> > > -	ns->capacity = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ns->power, SCHED_POWER_SCALE);
> > > -	ns->has_capacity = (ns->nr_running < ns->capacity);
> > > +	ns->load = (ns->load * SCHED_POWER_SCALE) / ns->compute_capacity;
> > > +	ns->task_capacity =
> > > +		DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ns->compute_capacity, SCHED_POWER_SCALE);
> > 
> > ..as do SCHED_POWER_SCALE, update_cpu_power() etc.
> 
> The rest is renamed in a later patch.  I wanted to split it into 
> multiple patches to keep those changes manageable.

I don't see a lot of benefit in creating intermediate inconsistencies vs
one bulk rename, but it does make smaller patches, so never mind.

-Mike

--
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/