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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <87zjz7nx5z.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:59:20 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...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 09:19:37 -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:15:12 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>> * Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> 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. 

Understood.  Thanks for the explanation!

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/