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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:28:01 -0700 From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: write better comments for weight calculations On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:25:02AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:47:43PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> >> This patch rewrites comments related task priorities and CPU usage >> >> along with an example to show how it works. >> > >> > To what purpose? Bigger word count? >> >> The intention is to improve the comments to make it more >> understandable (the weight calculations, factor of 1.25 etc). >> >> On reading through the comments the first time, I felt they could be >> improved. Is your concern more about the addition of an example >> increasing the word-count? Perhaps you'd rather this be added to >> Documentation/ instead? > > It might just be verbiage; I sometimes have trouble condensing text. > That is; some people need repetition, I get stuck trying to figure out > if its saying the same or not. > > In any case; if you want to clarify where the 1.25 comes from, maybe do > an abstract example, instead of an explicit one? > > -10% = .9, +10% = 1.1 -> 1.1/.9 = 1.(2) ~ 1.25 > > Or, starting with the weight thing: > > .45 = wa / (wa+wb) -> .45 (wa+wb) = wa -> > .45wa + .45wb = wa -> > .45wb = .55wa -> > wb/wa = .55/.45 = 1.(2) ~ 1.25 > > That's actually simpler to follow no? > > Now IIRC the whole thing is backwards anyway, we started with 1.25 and > got the ~10% from there. Yes we could condense it further and explain it without using an explicit example. I will work on a better patch along these lines. Thanks, Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists