Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:47:43 +0100 | From | Juri Lelli <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/10] sched/deadline: track the active utilization |
| |
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
| |