[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871px58cj9.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 11:40:10 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/sysctl: Add timer_migration to kernel.rst
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:08:13AM -0700 Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com> writes:
>>
>> > There is no mention of timer_migration in the docs. Add
>> > a short description.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
>> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
>> > Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
>> > ---
>> > Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst | 7 +++++++
>> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst
>> > index b2b36d0c3094..e03691e2cf4a 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst
>> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst
>> > @@ -1544,6 +1544,13 @@ constant ``FUTEX_TID_MASK`` (0x3fffffff).
>> > If a value outside of this range is written to ``threads-max`` an
>> > ``EINVAL`` error occurs.
>> >
>> > +timer_migration
>> > +===============
>> > +
>> > +When set, attempt to migrate timers away from idle cpus to allow them to remain
>> > +in low power states longer.
>> > +
>> > +Default is set.
>>
>> When set to *what*? It will always be set to *some* value, right? So
>> we should really say what the specific values mean.
>>
>
>
> Well, it's boolean so set means 1 and unset is 0. I was using the same
> style as the one below it:
>
> "
> traceoff_on_warning
> ===================
>
> When set, disables tracing (see Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst) when a
> ``WARN()`` is hit.
>
> "
Just saying it's a boolean would help. And our existing documentation
should rarely be taken as an example of what *good* documentation would
be... :)
> But I can change it to "enabled (1)" or something if you prefer.
"When set to a non-zero value" or some such would, I think, be a lot
more clear and make a better example for the next person to come along.
Get me an updated version and I can still queue it for 6.14.
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists