[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170608090555.hn4v32vamazl5ufa@e106622-lin>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:05:55 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] sched/deadline: track the active utilization
On 08/06/17 10:43, Luca Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:31:25 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > * luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
> > >
> > > Active utilization is defined as the total utilization of active
> > > (TASK_RUNNING) tasks queued on a runqueue. Hence, it is increased
> > > when a task wakes up and is decreased when a task blocks.
> > >
> > > When a task is migrated from CPUi to CPUj, immediately subtract the
> > > task's utilization from CPUi and add it to CPUj. This mechanism is
> > > implemented by modifying the pull and push functions.
> > > Note: this is not fully correct from the theoretical point of view
> > > (the utilization should be removed from CPUi only at the 0 lag
> > > time), a more theoretically sound solution is presented in the
> > > next patches.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
> > > Tested-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
> >
> > So that SOB chain is not valid - either Juri needs to be the From:
> > author, or it should be an Acked-by (or Reviewed-by).
> >
> > For now I've converted this to:
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
> > > Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
>
> Sorry, my fault: I must have misunderstood how to use the Signed-off-by
> stuff.
>
> The story here is that I took a patch originally developed by Juri and
> fixed and I heavily modified it. Since the current patch is very
> different from the original one, Juri suggested I should by the "From:"
> author, and I simply added his Signed-off-by to acknowledge that he was
> the author of the original patch.
>
> If Juri is ok with your change, I agree with it.
>
Yep, I'm OK with Ingo's solution.
Thanks,
- Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists