Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:48:19 +0000 | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 03/23] sched/core: Initialize the class of a new task |
| |
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 03:04:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 02:57:29PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_TASK_CLASSES > > > + p->class = TASK_CLASS_UNCLASSIFIED; > > > +#endif > > > > I find the term 'class' very broad and unclear what kind of class (without > > further reading). So I am worried about how this generic term usage plays > > with Linux source code in the long-term (like what if someone else comes up > > with a usage of term 'class' that is unrelated to IPC.) > > However much I like making a pain for people using C++ to compile the > kernel, I do think ipcc might be better here > (instructions_per_cycle_class for those of the novel per identifier > school of thought).
Yes, ipcc sounds fine to me.
> > To that end, I was wondering if it could be renamed to p->ipc_class, and > > CONFIG_SCHED_TASK_IPC_CLASSES, or something. > > Can we *please* shorten those thing instead of writing a novel? > CONFIG_SCHED_IPC_CLASS works just as well, no? Or TASK_IPC, whatever.
CONFIG_SCHED_IPC_CLASS also sounds fine, or:
CONFIG_SCHED_IPC_CLASS_SHORTENED_VERSION_TO_NOT_ANNOY_PETER.
thanks,
- Joel
| |