Well, my two cents in response (sorry, I will use a Linux style mail client next time):
1) Top half and bottom half do have interaction with each other. They share information, top half provides some measurement/average to load balance. Good news is they don't interleave operation. Splitting them does not mean they must be self-inclusive to each other. 2) What I have done is a starting point. What really matters is some good design from that starting point. I myself have been working on workload consolidation (or task packing, you name it) for a while. I did have an intent to do a complete bottom half. So, encapsulating the load balance in a class allows it to be replaced easier. But this had already been the last thing I want even if I can do that (before the very first email), because it won't make "a better world". Lets explore the design space a little bit. For load balance, its function is like: Tasks -> be balanced -> on CPUs Be more specific: [ which_1 ] tasks -> be balanced -> on [ which_2 ] CPUs Which_1 can be: fair or rt by priority. ARM people may want "small/light" or "big/heavy" by load tracking (fortunately, we don't need that). Maybe others. Which_2 can be: all, or some. Which_1 * which_2 have many combinations, each of which has this in common: XX tasks -> be balanced -> on YY CPUs (XX defined by bottom half but got from top half, the other done by bottom half). So it looks like we need a class, and we need a few implementations (each for a combination) in a *hierarchy* and work together. I don't have the final answer yet, this is why I said I am continuing to redesign and refactor it. But it really looks that modularity should/can be applied here to help realize so complex a system. Thanks, Yuyang -- 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/
