Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Jun 2022 21:27:42 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | 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@infradead.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@gmail.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.
| |