Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:04:35 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 -tip] sched: Clean unused fields from struct rq |
| |
* Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >>> * Luis Henriques <henrix@sapo.pt> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:51:37PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Since they are used on in statistics and are always set to zero, the following > >>>>> fields from struct rq have been removed: yld_exp_empty, yld_act_empty and > >>>>> yld_both_empty. > >>>>> > >>>>> Both Sched Debug and SCHEDSTAT_VERSION versions has also been incremented since > >>>>> ABIs have been changed. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Hi Ingo, > >>>> > >>>> Sorry to bother you but I can not find this patch in -tip. Just > >>>> would like to confirm with you that it was NACK'ed or you just > >>>> forgot to merge it to the tree. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Was held up by the schedstat tool discussions. Please resend the > >>> patch with a link to the updated tool in the commit log perhaps (if > >>> such a link exists), and with Gregory's ack in place. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Ingo > >>> > >>> > >> Hi Ingo, > >> I was waiting to merge the tool patch until I was sure this would be > >> your blessed v15 of the ABI. If you are comfy with the kernel patch but > >> want the tool updated before the kernel, I can do that, no problem. The > >> only thing that I ask is that if for some reason this kernel patch > >> doesn't make it in, please require any future patches that change this > >> ABI to be versioned > 15 ;) > >> > > > > How about moving schedstat to Documentation/sched/schedstat.c or so? > > It's small and trivial enough, and that way changes would go hand in > > hand with the app. > > > > Oh, I misunderstood. The tool patch I was referencing is for my > schedtop tool that is in a separate tree and written in C++. In > retrospect, you probably don't care about the relative state of my > tool coincident with the kernel side change, then. I agree that > this other schedstat tool should probably be in-tree and patched > at the same time as Luis' kernel patch. > > FWIW: I have no problem with schedtop.cc going into the kernel as > well if that is what you would like, but I figured I would be > burned at the stake for suggestion such heresy as C++ in the tree > ;)
i'd not mind it being added to the kernel tree, were it not for the extremely serious danger of irreversible mental contamination :)
Ingo
| |