On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 09:35 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.
Okay, I'll add a task_cputime_atomic.
That will convert things like:
void sample_group_cputimer(struct task_cputime *times,
struct thread_group_cputimer *cputimer)
to
void sample_atomic_cputimes(struct task_cputime *times
struct task_cputime_atomic *atomic_cputimes)
which makes more sense, and the new "task_cputime_atomic" can
potentially be used in other places.
Thanks,
Jason
--
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/
