linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Split the function show

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 5 Dec 2020 10:31:57 +0800
From:   Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:     <mingo@...hat.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
        <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        <bsegall@...gle.com>, <bristot@...hat.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Shiyuan Hu <hushiyuan@...wei.com>,
        Hewenliang <hewenliang4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Split the function show_schedstat()



On 2020/12/4 17:40, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:22:34AM +0800, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2020/12/3 17:42, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 02:47:14PM +0800, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>>>> The schedstat include runqueue-specific stats and domain-specific stats,
>>>> so split it into two functions, show_rqstat() and show_domainstat().
>>>>
>>>> No functional changes.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> I could understand if there was a follow-up patch that adjusted some
>>> subset or there was a difference in checking for schedstat_enabled,
>>> locking or inserting new schedstat information. This can happen in the
>>> general case when the end result is easier to review here it seems to be
>>> just moving code around.
>>>
>> The rqstat and domainstat is independent state information. so I think
>> split it into two individual function is clearer.
>>
> 
> The comments and the names of the structures being accessesd is sufficient
> to make it clear.
> 
ok, thanks.