On 2013/2/13 17:15, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:54:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> * Clark Williams <willi...@redhat.com> 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. >
While previously working on a cgroup patchset that also touched sched.h, I noticed some lines can be moved to kernel/sched/sched.h. I've cooked up a patchset to do that, and it results in reduction of 200+ lines in sched.h. I'll do some compile testing before sending it out. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
