Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 02:57:17 +0900
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/core: add forced idle accounting for cgroups
Message-ID: <YrtA/ZksAYaxqcx3@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20220621234443.3506529-1-joshdon@google.com>
 <Yrl1Tdds6g7h60F3@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <CABk29NvMRWbJgZ7VdzdeDVz0v=PKJJJ0gFk=+X884U25ZJhbsA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABk29NvMRWbJgZ7VdzdeDVz0v=PKJJJ0gFk=+X884U25ZJhbsA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 03:35:21PM -0700, Josh Don wrote:
> > Would it make sense to namespace the name to reflect the fact that
> > this is tied to core scheduling? e.g. something like
> > core.force_idle_usec (and yeah, underscore between words, please). I
> > kinda hate that the feature is named "core". The word is so
> > overloaded.
> 
> Sure, although a namespace of "core_sched" would be a bit clearer,
> since as you point out "core" is pretty overloaded :)

Yeah, core_sched is probabaly better and hopefully it'll get better as
we get used to the name.

> Lack of underscore for forceidle was to be consistent with
> "core_forceidle_sum" being dumped from /proc/pid/sched, but I'm fine
> with it either way.
> 
> So,
> 
> core_sched.force_idle_usec ?

Yeah, that'd be my preference.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun