lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [patch v8 3/9] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new forked task
I actually did read it before, and still wasn't sure of the right tag to use.

"13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:

The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.

If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog."
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches

Acked-By seemed to fail the direct involvement test.
The definition of "delivery path" is not clear; is this strictly by
inputs to Linus' tree or recipients of the original patch?

Is Reviewed-By always more appropriate here?



On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:16:28PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 06/14/2013 07:09 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
>> > Minor comments; looks good otherwise.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
>>
>> thanks a lot Paul. the patch with your input updated here:
>>
>> BTW, would you like to give some comments on the last patch of this patchset?
>>
>> ---
>> From ed35080d0bae803d68f84a3e683d34a356a5a5de Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
>> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:41:09 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH 3/8] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new forked
>> task
>>
>> We need initialize the se.avg.{decay_count, load_avg_contrib} for a
>> new forked task.
>> Otherwise random values of above variables cause mess when do new task
>> enqueue:
>> enqueue_task_fair
>> enqueue_entity
>> enqueue_entity_load_avg
>>
>> and make forking balancing imbalance since incorrect load_avg_contrib.
>>
>> Further more, Morten Rasmussen notice some tasks were not launched at
>> once after created. So Paul and Peter suggest giving a start value for
>> new task runnable avg time same as sched_slice().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
>
> Should you all go read: Documentation/SubmittingPatches , or am I
> somehow confused on the SoB rules?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-17 12:21    [W:0.108 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site