On Fri, 25 May 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> sure enough, i'll work something sane out - i already have it partly
> split up. It will probably be something along the lines of: 'remove
> stuff that we can remove and still have functional scheduling' followed
> by an 'add minimal CFS patch' and then nicely split up 'CFS related
> add-ons' (like the task-stats accounting things, debugging, etc).
Ok, that sounds good. Some of that is obviously already in separate files
already, even if they then just get #include'd into the main sched.c, so
yeah, splitting it up along those lines makes sense.
> Do you think i should try to split up the core CFS bits some more beyond
> this level? (that would be quite nontrivial i suspect)
I'd love to see some of that too, but I suspect that with something like
the scheduler, it's hard to have any reasonable (and working!) points that
make much sense. At some point, the changes to make it work incrementally
get bigger than the patches themselves, and rather than show what's going
on, it might _hide_ what's going on.
Linus
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
