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;
Date:   Sat, 1 Oct 2022 13:32:41 -0700
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Tim C . Chen" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/23] sched/core: Initialize the class of a new task
Message-ID: <20221001203241.GA14536@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
References: <20220909231205.14009-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
 <20220909231205.14009-4-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
 <YzG92YDyBK/0W+5u@google.com>
 <YzL053SxqWUimANi@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YzL053SxqWUimANi@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

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).

Sure, I will use ippc
> 
> > 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.

... and avoid the novel-style identifiers :) .

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo