From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756683Ab3JHUlI (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:41:08 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:54045 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756533Ab3JHUlE (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:41:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:40:56 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Oleg Nesterov , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] sched/wait: Collapse __wait_event macros -v5 Message-ID: <20131008204056.GR5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20131002092217.784439754@infradead.org> <20131004204405.GU3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131004204438.GR26785@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131005080416.GA25193@gmail.com> <20131008095927.GS3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131008102331.GB8852@gmail.com> <20131008141657.GW5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131008194718.GD7315@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131008194718.GD7315@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13100820-0928-0000-0000-00000240CB50 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:47:18PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:23:31PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 10:04:16AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:44:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > slightly related; do we want to do something like the following two > > > > > > > patches? > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, both look good to me - but I'd move them into > > > > > kernel/sched/completion.c and kernel/sched/wait.c if no-one objects. > > > > > > > > Do you also want to suck in semaphore.c mutex.c rwsem.c spinlock.c etc? > > > > Or do you want to create something like kernel/locking/ for all that. > > > > > > Yeah, I think kernel/locking/ would be a suitable place for those, and I'd > > > move lockdep*.c there too. (Such things are best done near the end of a > > > merge window, when there's not much pending, to not disrupt development.) > > > > > > kernel/*.c is a pretty crowded place with 100+ files currently, I've been > > > gradually working towards depopulating it slowly but surely for subsystems > > > that I co-maintain or where I'm frequently active. We already have: > > > > > > kernel/sched/ > > > kernel/events/ > > > kernel/irq/ > > > kernel/time/ > > > kernel/trace/ > > > > > > and the deeper kernel/*/* hierarchies already host another ~100 .c files. > > > So the transition is half done already I suspect. > > > > Should I be thinking about making a kernel/rcu? > > I wanted to raise it with you at the KS :-) Sorry for jumping the gun. ;-) > To me it would sure look nice to have kernel/rcu/tree.c, > kernel/rcu/tiny.c, kernel/rcu/core.c, etc. > > [ ... and we would certainly also break new ground by introducing a > "torture.c" file, for the first time in Linux kernel history! ;-) ] Ooh... I had better act fast! ;-) > But it's really your call, this is something you should only do if you are > comfortable with it. I have actually been thinking about it off and on for some time. Thanx, Paul