Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat

2013-08-26 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 03:09:38AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > + struct sg_lb_stats *this, *busiest; > > "this" is a little confusing to read; mainly because elsewhere we've > tied this to "this cpu" whereas the local sched group

Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat

2013-08-26 Thread Lei Wen
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Paul Turner wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Lei Wen wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra >> wrote: >>> From: Joonsoo Kim >>> >>> There is no reason to maintain separate variables for this_group >>> and busiest_group in

Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat

2013-08-26 Thread Lei Wen
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Paul Turner p...@google.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Lei Wen adrian.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: From: Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com There is no reason to maintain

Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat

2013-08-26 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 03:09:38AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: + struct sg_lb_stats *this, *busiest; this is a little confusing to read; mainly because elsewhere we've tied this to this cpu whereas the local

Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat

2013-08-25 Thread Paul Turner
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Lei Wen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> From: Joonsoo Kim >> >> There is no reason to maintain separate variables for this_group >> and busiest_group in sd_lb_stat, except saving some space. >> But this structure is always

Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat

2013-08-25 Thread Lei Wen
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > From: Joonsoo Kim > > There is no reason to maintain separate variables for this_group > and busiest_group in sd_lb_stat, except saving some space. > But this structure is always allocated in stack, so this saving > isn't really

Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat

2013-08-25 Thread Lei Wen
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: From: Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com There is no reason to maintain separate variables for this_group and busiest_group in sd_lb_stat, except saving some space. But this structure is always allocated in stack, so

Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat

2013-08-25 Thread Paul Turner
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Lei Wen adrian.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: From: Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com There is no reason to maintain separate variables for this_group and busiest_group in sd_lb_stat, except

Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat

2013-08-24 Thread Paul Turner
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > From: Joonsoo Kim > > There is no reason to maintain separate variables for this_group > and busiest_group in sd_lb_stat, except saving some space. > But this structure is always allocated in stack, so this saving > isn't really benificial

Re: [PATCH 03/10] sched: Clean-up struct sd_lb_stat

2013-08-24 Thread Paul Turner
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: From: Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com There is no reason to maintain separate variables for this_group and busiest_group in sd_lb_stat, except saving some space. But this structure is always allocated in stack, so