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