On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:19:37 -0600, Clark Williams wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:15:12 +0100 > Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: >> * Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:54:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > > * Clark Williams <willi...@redhat.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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
