linux-kernel - Re: [patch v8 3/9] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new forked task

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:07:38 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	Changlong Xie <changlongx.xie@...el.com>, sgruszka@...hat.com,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v8 3/9] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new
 forked task

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:57:50PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 05:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > and make forking balancing imbalance since incorrect load_avg_contrib.
> >> > 
> >> > Further more, Morten Rasmussen notice some tasks were not launched at
> >> > once after created. So Paul and Peter suggest giving a start value for
> >> > new task runnable avg time same as sched_slice().
> >> > 
> >> > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
> > Should you all go read: Documentation/SubmittingPatches , or am I
> > somehow confused on the SoB rules?
> 
> has this should been right, if Paul had handed in the modified patch as
> he suggested? :)
> 
> Sorry for stupid, I still don't know what's SoB rule?

Right, so it depends on who actually wrote the patch; the only case
that's really hard is when a patch is fully co-authored -- agile dev
nonsense like, 4 hands 1 keyboard situation or so.

Typically there's 1 somebody who did most work on a particular patch;
that someone would be Author/From and have first SoB.

If thereafter the patch becomes part of an aggregate work; he who
compiles can add another SoB; possibly with an extra [] line describing
'smallish' changes that were needed to the initial patch to make it fit
the aggregate.

Example:

From: PJT

foo patch implements foo because bar; note the fubar detail.

SoB: PJT
[alex@...el: changed ponies into horses to make it fit]
SoB: Alex

The other case is where a 'simple' modification of the initial patch
simply won't do; you need to change the core idea of the patch or
similar. In this case I've seen things like:

From: Alex

foo patch implements foo because bar; note the fubar detail.

Based-on-patch-by: PJT
SoB: Alex

This isn't actually in the submitting patches document and I'm not sure
it should be; although some clarification for these weird cases might be
useful.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/