Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932356Ab3FQJk3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:40:29 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]:52883 "EHLO mail-lb0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932201Ab3FQJk0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:40:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130617092146.GM3204@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1370589652-24549-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1370589652-24549-4-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <51BB25BC.9070500@intel.com> <20130617092146.GM3204@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Paul Turner Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:39:53 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch v8 3/9] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new forked task To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Alex Shi , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Borislav Petkov , Namhyung Kim , Mike Galbraith , Morten Rasmussen , Vincent Guittot , Preeti U Murthy , Viresh Kumar , LKML , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Michael Wang , Jason Low , Changlong Xie , sgruszka@redhat.com, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Weisbecker?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2447 Lines: 62 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 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 >> >> 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 >> 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 >> Signed-off-by: Paul Turner > > Should you all go read: Documentation/SubmittingPatches , or am I > somehow confused on the SoB rules? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/