[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM7-yPRts2tZYGBvC7=eFZzemvFq9p_p4FDpidjq27q55m+9Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 20:15:19 +0100
From: Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@...il.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] time/tick-sched: idle load balancing when nohz_full
cpu becomes idle.
Hi Markus.
> * Why did you repeat typos in this patch iteration?
> * Would you like to take the relevance of imperative wordings for changelogs
better into account?
Sorry for my mistake, I've fixed it but, I sent an old one :(
Thanks
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 7:38 PM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:
>
> > When nohz_full CPU stops tick in tick_nohz_irq_exit(),
> > It wouldn't be chosen to perform idle load balancing bacause it doesn't
> …
> > So, nohz_balance_enter_idle() could be called safely without !was_stooped
> > check.
>
> * Why did you repeat typos in this patch iteration?
>
> * Would you like to take the relevance of imperative wordings for changelogs
> better into account?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.9-rc7#n94
>
>
> > ---
> > kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 6 ++++--
>
> Will further patch version descriptions become helpful behind the marker line?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists