* Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:54:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Clark Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I figured that was coming. :)
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> >> I'll look at it again and see about pulling the
> >> autogroup/cgroup stuff into it's own header. After that it's
> >> probably going to require some serious changes.
> >>
> >> Any suggestions?
> >
> > I'd suggest doing it as finegrained as possible - potentially
> > one concept at a time. I wouldn't mind a dozen small files in
> > include/linux/sched/ - possibly more.
>
> What about the .c files? AFAICS the sched/core.c and
> sched/fair.c are rather huge and contain various concepts
> which might be separated to their own files. It'd be better
> reorganizing them too IMHO.
I'd be more careful about those, because there's various
scheduler patch-sets floating modifying them.
sched.h is much more static and it is the one that actually gets
included in like 60% of all *other* .c files, adding a few
thousand lines to every .o compilation and causing measurable
compile time overhead ...
So sched.h splitting is something we should really do, if
there's people interested in and capable of pulling it off.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
