On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:35:43AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:23:41PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote: > >> The PELT decay_load comments are a bit confusing, first of all > >> the 1/2^N should be (1/2)^N so that the reader doesn't get confused. > > > > I'm thinking you're confused. They're identical. > > > > (1/2)^N = (2^-1)^N = 2^-N = 1/2^N > > They are identical I know, but I meant by enclosing the 1/2 in > brackets, it is more clear that we multiply by 1/2 N times to the > first time reader - for the reason that we'd like to reduce the PELT > calculated load by 1/2 N times.
Must be me then, because I've never been confused about that. Esp. so since the first part: y^p = 1/2, explicitly mentions half. So its clear from the factorization that half is meant. > >> Secondly, the y^N splitting into a 2-part decay factor deserves > >> a better explanation. This patch improves the comments. > > > > I find its actually harder to read. > > Oh, which part? Can you help improve it? Maybe I didn't word something > correctly? I think the fact that there's now words actually makes it worse. The equation very concisely shows what we do. I don't see why we need extra words there to obscure things.
