MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170322175541.culjydvydyzy4dza@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170310204743.12872-1-joelaf@google.com> <20170322141808.icah4ygikteqbqdo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAJWu+opS0k14_uX=EJv49RyH2jPwZzNvs-XzdQa00W2=2Z2LOQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170322175541.culjydvydyzy4dza@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:28:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJWu+oqitEv_e_gD7VCbqop3nBu1iwiU0jNaKkEudj4Omoh=iA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: write better comments for weight calculations
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1706
Lines: 43

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:25:02AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:47:43PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> >> This patch rewrites comments related task priorities and CPU usage
>> >> along with an example to show how it works.
>> >
>> > To what purpose? Bigger word count?
>>
>> The intention is to improve the comments to make it more
>> understandable (the weight calculations, factor of 1.25 etc).
>>
>> On reading through the comments the first time, I felt they could be
>> improved. Is your concern more about the addition of an example
>> increasing the word-count? Perhaps you'd rather this be added to
>> Documentation/ instead?
>
> It might just be verbiage; I sometimes have trouble condensing text.
> That is; some people need repetition, I get stuck trying to figure out
> if its saying the same or not.
>
> In any case; if you want to clarify where the 1.25 comes from, maybe do
> an abstract example, instead of an explicit one?
>
>  -10% = .9, +10% = 1.1 -> 1.1/.9 = 1.(2) ~ 1.25
>
> Or, starting with the weight thing:
>
> .45 = wa / (wa+wb) -> .45 (wa+wb) = wa ->
>                       .45wa + .45wb = wa ->
>                       .45wb = .55wa ->
>                       wb/wa = .55/.45 = 1.(2) ~ 1.25
>
> That's actually simpler to follow no?
>
> Now IIRC the whole thing is backwards anyway, we started with 1.25 and
> got the ~10% from there.

Yes we could condense it further and explain it without using an
explicit example. I will work on a better patch along these lines.

Thanks,
Joel