linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/pelt: Fix bracket typo

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YqD4LiEcxpHTrTVp@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jun 2022 21:27:42 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     龍帆軒 <1030steven@...il.com>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/pelt: Fix bracket typo

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 01:24:45AM +0800, 龍帆軒 wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:33 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/8/22 08:00, Steven Lung wrote:
> > > The second bracket describing the range is inverted, this patch
> > > will fix it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Steven Lung <1030steven@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/sched/pelt.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/pelt.c b/kernel/sched/pelt.c
> > > index 0f3107682..ed82cfba9 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/pelt.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/pelt.c
> > > @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ ___update_load_sum(u64 now, struct sched_avg *sa,
> > >   * When syncing *_avg with *_sum, we must take into account the current
> > >   * position in the PELT segment otherwise the remaining part of the segment
> > >   * will be considered as idle time whereas it's not yet elapsed and this will
> > > - * generate unwanted oscillation in the range [1002..1024[.
> >
> > Is the above the same as                   range [1002..1024).
> > ?  I.e. 1002-1023 inclusive (or 1024 excluded)?

> In the patch that the author submitted[1] for this comment, he
> mentioned that the value 1024 can be obtained.
> So I think we should use brackets instead of parenthesis.

Yeah, IIRC the value is fundamentally [0,1] (*scale) there. Therefore
the patch as proposed makes sense to me.