On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > struct posix_cputimers {
> > - struct task_cputime cputime_expires;
> > - struct list_head cpu_timers[CPUCLOCK_MAX];
> > + /* Temporary union until all users are cleaned up */
> > + union {
> > + struct task_cputime cputime_expires;
> > + u64 expiries[CPUCLOCK_MAX];
> > + };
> > + struct list_head cpu_timers[CPUCLOCK_MAX];
> > };
>
> Could we please name this first_expiry[] or such, to make it clear that
> this is cached value of the first expiry of all timers of this process,
> instead of the rather vague 'expiries[]' naming?
>
> Also, while at it, after the above temporary transition union, the final
> structure becomes:
>
> struct posix_cputimers {
> u64 expiries[CPUCLOCK_MAX];
> struct list_head cpu_timers[CPUCLOCK_MAX];
> };
>
> Wouldn't it be more natural and easier to read to have the list head and
> the expiry together:
>
> struct posix_cputimer_list {
> u64 first_expiry;
> struct list_head list;
> };
>
> struct posix_cputimers {
> struct posix_cputimer_list timers[CPUCLOCK_MAX];
> };
>
> ?
>
> This makes the array structure rather clear and the first_expiry field
> mostly self-documenting.
I kept the odd named expiries for the temporary union and then after the
patch which removes the abused struct task_cputime, I applied a separate
cleanup which looks similar to the above.
Just the names are a bit different and more aligned to what we have in
hrtimers:
struct posix_cputimer_base {
u64 nextevt;
struct timerqueue_head tqhead;
};
and then have
struct posix_cputimers {
struct posix_cputimer_base bases[CPUCLOCK_MAX];
};
I'll send out a new version after doing some more testing.
Thanks,
tglx
