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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:19:37 -0600
From:	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] scheduler include file reorganization

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:15:12 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:

> 
> * Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:54:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo


And since I'm one of the people that care about the RT patch (which
modifies the scheduler files) I'll just start with baby steps and reorg
the headers. 

Clark

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)