On Thu, 15 May 2014, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 14 May 2014 22:57, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > We have "power" (which should actually become "capacity") and "capacity"
> > which is a scaled down "capacity factor" in terms of possible tasks.
> > Let's use "capa_factor" to make room for proper usage of "capacity"
> > later.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <n...@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 0eda4c527e..2633c42692 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -5487,7 +5487,7 @@ struct sg_lb_stats {
> > unsigned long load_per_task;
> > unsigned long group_power;
> > unsigned int sum_nr_running; /* Nr tasks running in the group */
> > - unsigned int group_capacity;
> > + unsigned int group_capa_factor;
>
> As it is mainly compared to sum_nr_running, you might rename it to
> group_nr_capacity instead of group_capa_factor
But what actual meaning would "group_nr_capacity" convey? This could be
interpreted as the total number of groups possible for example.
Nicolas
--
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/
