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 <luca.abeni@xxxxxxxx>
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
