Re: [PATCH v3 -tip] sched: Clean unused fields from struct rq

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>     
> >>> * Luis Henriques <henrix@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:51:37PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> Since they are used on in statistics and are always set to zero, the following
> >>>>> fields from struct rq have been removed: yld_exp_empty, yld_act_empty and
> >>>>> yld_both_empty.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both Sched Debug and SCHEDSTAT_VERSION versions has also been incremented since
> >>>>> ABIs have been changed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> Hi Ingo,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry to bother you but I can not find this patch in -tip.  Just 
> >>>> would like to confirm with you that it was NACK'ed or you just 
> >>>> forgot to merge it to the tree.
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>> Was held up by the schedstat tool discussions. Please resend the 
> >>> patch with a link to the updated tool in the commit log perhaps (if 
> >>> such a link exists), and with Gregory's ack in place.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> 	Ingo
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> Hi Ingo,
> >>   I was waiting to merge the tool patch until I was sure this would be
> >> your blessed v15 of the ABI.  If you are comfy with the kernel patch but
> >> want the tool updated before the kernel, I can do that, no problem.  The
> >> only thing that I ask is that if for some reason this kernel patch
> >> doesn't make it in, please require any future patches that change this
> >> ABI to be versioned > 15 ;)
> >>     
> >
> > How about moving schedstat to Documentation/sched/schedstat.c or so? 
> > It's small and trivial enough, and that way changes would go hand in 
> > hand with the app.
> >   
>
> Oh, I misunderstood.  The tool patch I was referencing is for my 
> schedtop tool that is in a separate tree and written in C++.  In 
> retrospect, you probably don't care about the relative state of my 
> tool coincident with the kernel side change, then.  I agree that 
> this other schedstat tool should probably be in-tree and patched 
> at the same time as Luis' kernel patch.
> 
> FWIW: I have no problem with schedtop.cc going into the kernel as 
> well if that is what you would like, but I figured I would be 
> burned at the stake for suggestion such heresy as C++ in the tree 
> ;)

i'd not mind it being added to the kernel tree, were it not for the 
extremely serious danger of irreversible mental contamination :)

	Ingo