[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110523170126.GA14407@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 19:01:26 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bloat] Measuring header file bloat effects on kernel build
performance: a more than 2x slowdown ...
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached a totally hacky patch that removes all the big #include's from
> > kernel/pid.c and includes all structure and API definitions explicitly.
>
> Hmm.
>
> A less hacky patch might be to split up "sched.h" into multiple
> smaller things and at least get *part* of the way.
>
Yeah, absolutely - Peter already raised that a couple of days ago in a sched.h
discussion so it's on the radar.
The hacky patch was really just a throw-away attempt to see where we stand - we
only had vague impressions about the level of problems we have, now we know
some numbers.
> A lot of things want "struct task_struct" (and in some cases thread_info, but
> that's already split).
>
> Much fewer care about the signal stuff.
>
> And many things probably don't even need the task_struct definition, and
> might be perfectly happy with just function calls rather than having intimate
> knowledge of the structure layout and an inline function.
Yeah.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists