From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755107AbaICGnO (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 02:43:14 -0400 Received: from mail3.unitn.it ([193.205.206.24]:59295 "EHLO mail3.unitn.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751508AbaICGnN (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 02:43:13 -0400 Message-ID: <5406B874.5040507@unitn.it> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 08:43:00 +0200 From: Luca Abeni User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Austad , Juri Lelli CC: peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, raistlin@linux.it, juri.lelli@gmail.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: fix terminology and improve clarity References: <1409220029-9002-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> <1409220029-9002-2-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20140902211019.GA22581@sisyphus.home.austad.us> In-Reply-To: <20140902211019.GA22581@sisyphus.home.austad.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 09/02/2014 11:10 PM, Henrik Austad wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:00:26AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: >> From: Luca Abeni >> >> Several small changes regarding SCHED_DEADLINE documentation that fix >> terminology and improve clarity and readability: >> >> - "current runtime" becomes "remaining runtime" >> >> - readablity of an equation is improved by introducing more spacing >> >> - clarify when admission control will certainly fail >> >> - new URL for CBS technical report >> >> - substitue "smallest" with "closest" > > I'm tempted to say "earliest" (being part of the algorithm's name and all > ;) Well, AFAIR "closest" was suggested during the initial review some months ago... Anyway, if now there is agreement on "earliest" I can change to it; let me know. [...] >> Summing up, the CBS[2,3] algorithms assigns scheduling deadlines to tasks so >> that each task runs for at most its runtime every period, avoiding any >> interference between different tasks (bandwidth isolation), while the EDF[1] >> - algorithm selects the task with the smallest scheduling deadline as the one >> + algorithm selects the task with the closest scheduling deadline as the one >> to be executed first. Thanks to this feature, also tasks that do not > > s/first/next/ > > Also, next sentence does not make much sense, I would drop the also; > > "Thanks to this feature, tasks that do not strictly comply with the ..." I agree with these changes, but they are in text that is not changed by my patch, right? What should I do? Add these changes to the patch, or send an additional incremental patch with these changes? Thanks, Luca