Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 May 2014 12:06:40 -0400 (EDT) | From | Nicolas Pitre <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/6] sched/fair.c: disambiguate existing/remaining "capacity" usage |
| |
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 14 May 2014 22:57, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@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 <nico@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
| |