[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250114190404.GB149002@pauld.westford.csb>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:04:04 -0500
From: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/sysctl: Add timer_migration to kernel.rst
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:40:10AM -0700 Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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... :)
Fair enough :)
>
> > 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.
Shortly.
Thanks,
Phil
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon
>
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists