[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f14bf408-8a6d-4213-b922-82f1e8782609@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:47:21 +0530
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] sched/balancing: Rename load_balance() =>
sched_balance_rq()
On 3/8/24 4:48 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Standardize scheduler load-balancing function names on the
> sched_balance_() prefix.
>
> Also load_balance() has become somewhat of a misnomer: historically
> it was the first and primary load-balancing function that was called,
> but with the introduction of sched domains, it's become a lower
> layer function that balances runqueues.
>
> Rename it to sched_balance_rq() accordingly.
nit: Can this be sched_balance_rqs()? since load balancing happens
between two runqeueus.
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> ---
Though one would have been familiar with names(for someone started recently),
given the correct behaviour and historical context helps why the name changes are making sense.
Reviewed-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists