lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-24 22:07    [W:0.026 / U:31.948 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site