From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755933Ab3JHTrY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:47:24 -0400
Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com ([74.125.83.54]:63761 "EHLO
	mail-ee0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752914Ab3JHTrW (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:47:22 -0400
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:47:18 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] sched/wait: Collapse __wait_event macros -v5
Message-ID: <20131008194718.GD7315@gmail.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131008141657.GW5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:23:31PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 10:04:16AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> 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 :-)

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! ;-) ]

But it's really your call, this is something you should only do if you are 
comfortable with it.

Thanks,

	Ingo