Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:23:42 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification |
| |
* Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:
> > But the kernel complexity you introduce with this series stays with us! It > > will be an additional cost added to many scheduler commits going forward. It's > > an added cost for all the other usecases. > > OK, let's talk about that a bit. How isn't sched/core.c with its 7387 > lines not overly complex already? How is my moving of rt related code to > rt.c and dl related code to dl.c not helping things? Isn't it easier to > understand the 3500 lines of code in futex.c when half of it i.e. the PI > specific code is split into a separate file? I ask you. > > If you want to pick only those patches for now then please be my guest. > At lease the first two patches of the series should be mergeable without > even a doubt.
That's a strawman argument - I was reacting to the combined effect of your series:
> > > 23 files changed, 3190 insertions(+), 2897 deletions(-)
A subset of the patches might be fine and note that in fact I already picked a patch from your series that made sense, I committed this patch of yours three days ago:
f5832c1998af: sched/core: Omit building stop_sched_class when !SMP
I'll pick others as well as long as they don't complicate the code. Please send a revised series that only does unambiguous complexity reduction/cleanups.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |