* Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> So after your changes we still have a separate:
>
> struct task_cputime {
> cputime_t utime;
> cputime_t stime;
> unsigned long long sum_exec_runtime;
> };
>
> Which then weirdly overlaps with a different structure on a different
> abstraction level:
>
> struct thread_group_cputimer {
> atomic64_t utime;
> atomic64_t stime;
> atomic64_t sum_exec_runtime;
> int running;
> };
>
> So I think it would be more obvious what's going on if we introduced
> an atomic task_cputime structure:
>
> struct task_cputime_atomic {
> atomic64_t utime;
> atomic64_t stime;
> atomic64_t sum_exec_runtime;
> };
>
> and put that into 'struct thread_group_cputimer':
>
> struct thread_group_cputimer {
> struct task_cputime_atomic cputime_atomic;
> int running;
> };
>
> Maybe even factor out the main update and reading methods into
> expressively named helper inlines?
Btw., feel free to preserve your original series and turn this
factoring out into 1-2 extra patches on top of it: so that we preserve
your testing on the original series, and see the structure (and cost)
of the factoring out of the new data type.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
