[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150402173238.GF23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 19:32:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
"nicolas.pitre@...aro.org" <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>,
Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 04/11] sched: Make sched entity usage tracking
scale-invariant
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 05:53:09PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Could you enlighten me a bit about how to define the arch specific
> implementation without getting into trouble? I'm failing miserably :(
Hmm, this was not supposed to be difficult.. :/
> I thought the arm arch-specific topology.h file was a good place to put
> the define as it get included in sched.h, so I did a:
>
> #define arch_scale_freq_capacity arm_arch_scale_freq_capacity
>
> However, I have to put a function prototype in the same (or some other
> included) header file to avoid doing an implicit function definition.
> arch_scale_freq_capacity() takes a struct sched_domain pointer, so I
> have to include linux/sched.h which leads to circular dependency between
> linux/sched.h and topology.h.
Why would you have to include linux/sched.h ?
#define arch_scale_freq_capacity arch_scale_freq_capacity
struct sched_domain;
extern unsigned long arch_scale_freq_capacity(struct sched_domain *, int cpu);
Would work from you asm/topology.h, right?
> We can drop the sched_domain pointer as we don't use it, but I'm going
> to do the same trick for arch_scale_cpu_capacity() as well which does
> require the sd pointer.
Sure, dropping that pointer is fine.
> Finally, is introducing an ARCH_HAS_SCALE_FREQ_CAPACITY or similar a
> complete no go?
It seems out of style, I'd have to go look for the email thread, but
this should more or less be the same no?
--
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