[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCHSET] cpuhog: implement and use cpuhog
    Hello, Peter.

    On 03/29/2010 06:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > Its a pretty minor difference, shouldn't we simply audit all existing
    > kstopmachine users and fix that up, having two similar but not quite
    > identical interfaces in the kernel sounds like trouble.

    Yeap, sure. I don't think naming one way or the other is a problem
    logistics-wise. These aren't very widely used APIs anyway. I've been
    thinking quite a while about it and visible interface like the
    following would probably fit your suggestion.

    * stop_cpu() - identical to hog_cpu()
    * stop_cpus() - identical to hog_cpus()
    * stop_machine()

    It's just that stop_cpu[s]() don't look like good names because they
    don't really stop cpus. This distinction is visible in
    implementation. stop_machine()'s per-cpu callback is currently named
    stop_cpu() and it adds quite a bit more restrictions on top of just
    hogging the cpu. To me, the following visible API seems better.

    * hog_cpu()
    * hog_cpus()
    * stop_machine() - uses stop_cpu() internally for implementation

    Oh well, I guess it's a matter of taste. Given that other people
    don't dislike the current naming too much, I'll try to push it forward
    to Ingo w/ your objection to naming noted.

    Thank you for reviewing.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-02 07:49    [W:0.030 / U:67.300 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site