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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230526145519.2282062-1-vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
 <20230526172959.5440b9dd@nowhere> <CAO7JXPgLFgXANqXY7L-YLbijxJCOgUKmd8nUQizb62JorOXGhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7JXPit6snFM2oW-uSs-mtbmKr9wpbX2exqAUF0iAiaAO6hOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7JXPit6snFM2oW-uSs-mtbmKr9wpbX2exqAUF0iAiaAO6hOg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 12:15:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO7JXPgf9ffVQ3n9iD8-1abuDSAZHWAZmz56BmM68uJZ7uy+Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/deadline: Fix bandwidth reclaim equation in GRUB
To:     luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        youssefesmat@google.com,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:58=E2=80=AFAM Vineeth Remanan Pillai
<vineeth@bitbyteword.org> wrote:
>
> > > ...But I think this is wrong (should be "Umax - ...", not "1 - ...").
> > > I think patch 2/2 has the same issue.
> > >
> > Oops sorry, I missed this. Will send the fixed patch as a
> > reply to the original v4.
> >
> On looking again, I think the description is correct. That line
> mentions the actual m-GRUB equation from the paper. And then the
> comment explains why we use Umax(because of limiting the bandwidth
> to RT capacity).
>
Ahh my bad again :-(, I was looking at the commit message. I see the
issue in the code comment now.

I have just sent the fix as a reply to the initial patch. I shall send a
v5 if needed. Please let me know.

Thanks,
Vineeth