Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification

[Ingo Molnar]

* Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > But the kernel complexity you introduce with this series stays with us! It 
> > will be an additional cost added to many scheduler commits going forward. It's 
> > an added cost for all the other usecases.
> 
> OK, let's talk about that a bit. How isn't sched/core.c with its 7387 
> lines not overly complex already? How is my moving of rt related code to 
> rt.c and dl related code to dl.c not helping things? Isn't it easier to 
> understand the 3500 lines of code in futex.c when half of it i.e. the PI 
> specific code is split into a separate file? I ask you.
> 
> If you want to pick only those patches for now then please be my guest. 
> At lease the first two patches of the series should be mergeable without 
> even a doubt.

That's a strawman argument - I was reacting to the combined effect of your series:

 > > >  23 files changed, 3190 insertions(+), 2897 deletions(-)

A subset of the patches might be fine and note that in fact I already picked a 
patch from your series that made sense, I committed this patch of yours three days 
ago:

  f5832c1998af: sched/core: Omit building stop_sched_class when !SMP

I'll pick others as well as long as they don't complicate the code. Please send a 
revised series that only does unambiguous complexity reduction/cleanups.

Thanks,

	Ingo