Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1660933 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 01/10] sched/deadline: track the active utilization

Started byIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
First post2017-06-08 10:40 +0200
Last post2017-06-08 15:50 +0200
Articles 5 — 4 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 01/10] sched/deadline: track the active utilization Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-06-08 10:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 01/10] sched/deadline: track the active utilization Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it> - 2017-06-08 10:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 01/10] sched/deadline: track the active utilization Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2017-06-08 11:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 01/10] sched/deadline: track the active utilization Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-06-08 15:40 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 01/10] sched/deadline: track the active utilization Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2017-06-08 15:50 +0200

#1660933 — Re: [PATCH 01/10] sched/deadline: track the active utilization

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2017-06-08 10:40 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/10] sched/deadline: track the active utilization
Message-ID<tQ190-1Rp-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
* luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it> wrote:

> From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> 
> Active utilization is defined as the total utilization of active
> (TASK_RUNNING) tasks queued on a runqueue. Hence, it is increased
> when a task wakes up and is decreased when a task blocks.
> 
> When a task is migrated from CPUi to CPUj, immediately subtract the
> task's utilization from CPUi and add it to CPUj. This mechanism is
> implemented by modifying the pull and push functions.
> Note: this is not fully correct from the theoretical point of view
> (the utilization should be removed from CPUi only at the 0 lag
> time), a more theoretically sound solution is presented in the
> next patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> Tested-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>

So that SOB chain is not valid - either Juri needs to be the From: author, or it 
should be an Acked-by (or Reviewed-by).

For now I've converted this to:

> Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>

Please holler if you'd like something else.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1660945

FromLuca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Date2017-06-08 10:50 +0200
Message-ID<tQ1iG-1UD-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1660933
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:31:25 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> * luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it> wrote:
> 
> > From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > 
> > Active utilization is defined as the total utilization of active
> > (TASK_RUNNING) tasks queued on a runqueue. Hence, it is increased
> > when a task wakes up and is decreased when a task blocks.
> > 
> > When a task is migrated from CPUi to CPUj, immediately subtract the
> > task's utilization from CPUi and add it to CPUj. This mechanism is
> > implemented by modifying the pull and push functions.
> > Note: this is not fully correct from the theoretical point of view
> > (the utilization should be removed from CPUi only at the 0 lag
> > time), a more theoretically sound solution is presented in the
> > next patches.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > Tested-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>  
> 
> So that SOB chain is not valid - either Juri needs to be the From:
> author, or it should be an Acked-by (or Reviewed-by).
> 
> For now I've converted this to:
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>  

Sorry, my fault: I must have misunderstood how to use the Signed-off-by
stuff.

The story here is that I took a patch originally developed by Juri and
fixed and I heavily modified it. Since the current patch is very
different from the original one, Juri suggested I should by the "From:"
author, and I simply added his Signed-off-by to acknowledge that he was
the author of the original patch.

If Juri is ok with your change, I agree with it.


			Thanks,
				Luca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1660961

FromJuri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Date2017-06-08 11:10 +0200
Message-ID<tQ1C2-2gD-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1660945
On 08/06/17 10:43, Luca Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:31:25 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > * luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > > 
> > > Active utilization is defined as the total utilization of active
> > > (TASK_RUNNING) tasks queued on a runqueue. Hence, it is increased
> > > when a task wakes up and is decreased when a task blocks.
> > > 
> > > When a task is migrated from CPUi to CPUj, immediately subtract the
> > > task's utilization from CPUi and add it to CPUj. This mechanism is
> > > implemented by modifying the pull and push functions.
> > > Note: this is not fully correct from the theoretical point of view
> > > (the utilization should be removed from CPUi only at the 0 lag
> > > time), a more theoretically sound solution is presented in the
> > > next patches.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > > Tested-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>  
> > 
> > So that SOB chain is not valid - either Juri needs to be the From:
> > author, or it should be an Acked-by (or Reviewed-by).
> > 
> > For now I've converted this to:
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > > Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>  
> 
> Sorry, my fault: I must have misunderstood how to use the Signed-off-by
> stuff.
> 
> The story here is that I took a patch originally developed by Juri and
> fixed and I heavily modified it. Since the current patch is very
> different from the original one, Juri suggested I should by the "From:"
> author, and I simply added his Signed-off-by to acknowledge that he was
> the author of the original patch.
> 
> If Juri is ok with your change, I agree with it.
> 

Yep, I'm OK with Ingo's solution.

Thanks,

- Juri

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1661197

FromSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Date2017-06-08 15:40 +0200
Message-ID<tQ5Pl-4SX-49@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1660961
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:05:55 +0100
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:

> On 08/06/17 10:43, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:31:25 +0200
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > * luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > > > 
> > > > Active utilization is defined as the total utilization of active
> > > > (TASK_RUNNING) tasks queued on a runqueue. Hence, it is increased
> > > > when a task wakes up and is decreased when a task blocks.
> > > > 
> > > > When a task is migrated from CPUi to CPUj, immediately subtract the
> > > > task's utilization from CPUi and add it to CPUj. This mechanism is
> > > > implemented by modifying the pull and push functions.
> > > > Note: this is not fully correct from the theoretical point of view
> > > > (the utilization should be removed from CPUi only at the 0 lag
> > > > time), a more theoretically sound solution is presented in the
> > > > next patches.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > > > Tested-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>    
> > > 
> > > So that SOB chain is not valid - either Juri needs to be the From:
> > > author, or it should be an Acked-by (or Reviewed-by).
> > > 
> > > For now I've converted this to:
> > >   
> > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > > > Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>    
> > 
> > Sorry, my fault: I must have misunderstood how to use the Signed-off-by
> > stuff.
> > 
> > The story here is that I took a patch originally developed by Juri and
> > fixed and I heavily modified it. Since the current patch is very
> > different from the original one, Juri suggested I should by the "From:"
> > author, and I simply added his Signed-off-by to acknowledge that he was
> > the author of the original patch.
> > 
> > If Juri is ok with your change, I agree with it.
> >   
> 
> Yep, I'm OK with Ingo's solution.
> 

Although, since the code originally came from you a Signed-off-by is
appropriate. The SOB is a chain of where the patch came from. As Juri
actually has part ownership, Juri should have a signed-off-by on the
patch. The problem with git is that it allows for multiple signed off
bys but only one owner.

-- Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1661238

FromJuri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Date2017-06-08 15:50 +0200
Message-ID<tQ5Z2-4WL-67@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1661197
On 08/06/17 09:36, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:05:55 +0100
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 08/06/17 10:43, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:31:25 +0200
> > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > * luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it> wrote:
> > > >   
> > > > > From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Active utilization is defined as the total utilization of active
> > > > > (TASK_RUNNING) tasks queued on a runqueue. Hence, it is increased
> > > > > when a task wakes up and is decreased when a task blocks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > When a task is migrated from CPUi to CPUj, immediately subtract the
> > > > > task's utilization from CPUi and add it to CPUj. This mechanism is
> > > > > implemented by modifying the pull and push functions.
> > > > > Note: this is not fully correct from the theoretical point of view
> > > > > (the utilization should be removed from CPUi only at the 0 lag
> > > > > time), a more theoretically sound solution is presented in the
> > > > > next patches.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > > > > Tested-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>    
> > > > 
> > > > So that SOB chain is not valid - either Juri needs to be the From:
> > > > author, or it should be an Acked-by (or Reviewed-by).
> > > > 
> > > > For now I've converted this to:
> > > >   
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> > > > > Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>    
> > > 
> > > Sorry, my fault: I must have misunderstood how to use the Signed-off-by
> > > stuff.
> > > 
> > > The story here is that I took a patch originally developed by Juri and
> > > fixed and I heavily modified it. Since the current patch is very
> > > different from the original one, Juri suggested I should by the "From:"
> > > author, and I simply added his Signed-off-by to acknowledge that he was
> > > the author of the original patch.
> > > 
> > > If Juri is ok with your change, I agree with it.
> > >   
> > 
> > Yep, I'm OK with Ingo's solution.
> > 
> 
> Although, since the code originally came from you a Signed-off-by is
> appropriate. The SOB is a chain of where the patch came from. As Juri
> actually has part ownership, Juri should have a signed-off-by on the
> patch. The problem with git is that it allows for multiple signed off
> bys but only one owner.
> 

Right. I've been also using Co-authored-by: in some other set, but I
don't think it's actually documented anywhere. :/

Anyway, not a big deal in this particular case. :)

Thanks,

- Juri

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web