Re: [PATCH 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update
Hi, On 04/12/2015 11:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Luca Abeni wrote: Hi all, here is an update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt. Respect to the RFC I sent few days ago, I: 1) Split the patches in a better way, (so that, for example, Zhiqiang Zhang's authorship is preserved) 2) Tried to address all the comments I received on the RFC 3) Added another patch, to split Section 3 in various subsections. I think it is more readable in this way. Anyway, this is the last patch, so it can easily be skipped if people do not like it. I also split in a separate patch the discussion about the relationship between tasks' parameters and SCHED_DEADLINE parameters. This is (I think) the only part of the patchset that has not been previously discussed; I decided to isolate it in its own patch so that other patches can be applied anyway. Note that your Signed-off-by lines are missing. Ops... I knew I was doing something wrong... I also noticed the following inconsistency: 'utilization' (and variants) is spelled in two variants in the text: 'utilization' and 'utilisation'. I'd strongly suggest using 'utilization' et al (american spelling), because that's how it's spelled in most of the kernel source. Sorry about that... I have ispell configured to use the british dictionary as a default. I think this inconsistency already existed before my patches... So, what should I do? Should I resend the patchset, adding a patch to convert from british to american spelling before my new changes? Or can the patches be committed as they are now, and then I send a follow-up patch to convert the spelling? In any case, I'll send the new version of the patchset or the follow-up patch (depending on what is the preferred thing) later this week, on Thursday or on Friday (right now I am overloaded with work-related stuff). Thanks, Luca -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update
Hi, On 04/12/2015 11:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Luca Abeni luca.ab...@unitn.it wrote: Hi all, here is an update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt. Respect to the RFC I sent few days ago, I: 1) Split the patches in a better way, (so that, for example, Zhiqiang Zhang's authorship is preserved) 2) Tried to address all the comments I received on the RFC 3) Added another patch, to split Section 3 in various subsections. I think it is more readable in this way. Anyway, this is the last patch, so it can easily be skipped if people do not like it. I also split in a separate patch the discussion about the relationship between tasks' parameters and SCHED_DEADLINE parameters. This is (I think) the only part of the patchset that has not been previously discussed; I decided to isolate it in its own patch so that other patches can be applied anyway. Note that your Signed-off-by lines are missing. Ops... I knew I was doing something wrong... I also noticed the following inconsistency: 'utilization' (and variants) is spelled in two variants in the text: 'utilization' and 'utilisation'. I'd strongly suggest using 'utilization' et al (american spelling), because that's how it's spelled in most of the kernel source. Sorry about that... I have ispell configured to use the british dictionary as a default. I think this inconsistency already existed before my patches... So, what should I do? Should I resend the patchset, adding a patch to convert from british to american spelling before my new changes? Or can the patches be committed as they are now, and then I send a follow-up patch to convert the spelling? In any case, I'll send the new version of the patchset or the follow-up patch (depending on what is the preferred thing) later this week, on Thursday or on Friday (right now I am overloaded with work-related stuff). Thanks, Luca -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update
* Luca Abeni wrote: > Hi all, > > here is an update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt. > Respect to the RFC I sent few days ago, I: > 1) Split the patches in a better way, (so that, for example, Zhiqiang Zhang's >authorship is preserved) > 2) Tried to address all the comments I received on the RFC > 3) Added another patch, to split Section 3 in various subsections. >I think it is more readable in this way. Anyway, this is the last patch, >so it can easily be skipped if people do not like it. > > I also split in a separate patch the discussion about the relationship between > tasks' parameters and SCHED_DEADLINE parameters. This is (I think) the only > part of the patchset that has not been previously discussed; I decided to > isolate it in its own patch so that other patches can be applied anyway. Note that your Signed-off-by lines are missing. I also noticed the following inconsistency: 'utilization' (and variants) is spelled in two variants in the text: 'utilization' and 'utilisation'. I'd strongly suggest using 'utilization' et al (american spelling), because that's how it's spelled in most of the kernel source. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update
* Luca Abeni luca.ab...@unitn.it wrote: Hi all, here is an update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt. Respect to the RFC I sent few days ago, I: 1) Split the patches in a better way, (so that, for example, Zhiqiang Zhang's authorship is preserved) 2) Tried to address all the comments I received on the RFC 3) Added another patch, to split Section 3 in various subsections. I think it is more readable in this way. Anyway, this is the last patch, so it can easily be skipped if people do not like it. I also split in a separate patch the discussion about the relationship between tasks' parameters and SCHED_DEADLINE parameters. This is (I think) the only part of the patchset that has not been previously discussed; I decided to isolate it in its own patch so that other patches can be applied anyway. Note that your Signed-off-by lines are missing. I also noticed the following inconsistency: 'utilization' (and variants) is spelled in two variants in the text: 'utilization' and 'utilisation'. I'd strongly suggest using 'utilization' et al (american spelling), because that's how it's spelled in most of the kernel source. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:19:47PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi Luca, nice work
> here is an update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt.
> Respect to the RFC I sent few days ago, I:
> 1) Split the patches in a better way, (so that, for example, Zhiqiang Zhang's
>authorship is preserved)
> 2) Tried to address all the comments I received on the RFC
> 3) Added another patch, to split Section 3 in various subsections.
>I think it is more readable in this way. Anyway, this is the last patch,
>so it can easily be skipped if people do not like it.
>
> I also split in a separate patch the discussion about the relationship between
> tasks' parameters and SCHED_DEADLINE parameters. This is (I think) the only
> part of the patchset that has not been previously discussed; I decided to
> isolate it in its own patch so that other patches can be applied anyway.
Apart from a slight nitpick (I didn't bother adding it the thread for patch
6) that the patch adds more than just references, it also describes Dhall's
effect, perhaps that should be reflected in the patch's subject.
Please consider adding
Reviewed-by: Henrik Austad
>
> Thanks,
> Luca
>
>
> Luca Abeni (7):
> Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: fix typos
> Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: use consistent namings
> Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: remove _i from sum, max
> and min
> Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: Some notes on EDF
> schedulability
> Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: add some references
> Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: relationship between
> tasks' deadlines and scheduling deadlines
> Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: Split Section 3
>
> Zhiqiang Zhang (1):
> Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: correct definition of
> density as C_i/min{D_i,P_i}
>
> Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt | 161
>
> 1 file changed, 142 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
--
Henrik Austad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:19:47PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Luca, nice work
here is an update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt.
Respect to the RFC I sent few days ago, I:
1) Split the patches in a better way, (so that, for example, Zhiqiang Zhang's
authorship is preserved)
2) Tried to address all the comments I received on the RFC
3) Added another patch, to split Section 3 in various subsections.
I think it is more readable in this way. Anyway, this is the last patch,
so it can easily be skipped if people do not like it.
I also split in a separate patch the discussion about the relationship between
tasks' parameters and SCHED_DEADLINE parameters. This is (I think) the only
part of the patchset that has not been previously discussed; I decided to
isolate it in its own patch so that other patches can be applied anyway.
Apart from a slight nitpick (I didn't bother adding it the thread for patch
6) that the patch adds more than just references, it also describes Dhall's
effect, perhaps that should be reflected in the patch's subject.
Please consider adding
Reviewed-by: Henrik Austad hen...@austad.us
Thanks,
Luca
Luca Abeni (7):
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: fix typos
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: use consistent namings
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: remove _i from sum, max
and min
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: Some notes on EDF
schedulability
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: add some references
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: relationship between
tasks' deadlines and scheduling deadlines
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: Split Section 3
Zhiqiang Zhang (1):
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: correct definition of
density as C_i/min{D_i,P_i}
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt | 161
1 file changed, 142 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
--
1.7.9.5
--
Henrik Austad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
