Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 12:24:16 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     zhaomzhao@126.com
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Zhao Mengmeng <zhaomengmeng@kylinos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] sched/fair: fix inconsistency in
 update_task_scan_period
Message-ID: <20230425102416.GA1335080@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230425100204.2032009-1-zhaomzhao@126.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230425100204.2032009-1-zhaomzhao@126.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 06:02:04AM -0400, zhaomzhao@126.com wrote:
> From: Zhao Mengmeng <zhaomengmeng@kylinos.cn>
> 
> During calculate numa_scan_period diff, the actual code
> and the comment are inconsistent. The comment says it is
> using shared faults ratio, but code uses private faults
> ratio. This patch fixes it.

So for some reason you think the comment is correct ? You also don't
discuss the performance changes caused by changing the code.