On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:23:41PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> The PELT decay_load comments are a bit confusing, first of all >> the 1/2^N should be (1/2)^N so that the reader doesn't get confused. > > I'm thinking you're confused. They're identical. > > (1/2)^N = (2^-1)^N = 2^-N = 1/2^N
They are identical I know, but I meant by enclosing the 1/2 in brackets, it is more clear that we multiply by 1/2 N times to the first time reader - for the reason that we'd like to reduce the PELT calculated load by 1/2 N times. >> Secondly, the y^N splitting into a 2-part decay factor deserves >> a better explanation. This patch improves the comments. > > I find its actually harder to read. Oh, which part? Can you help improve it? Maybe I didn't word something correctly? Regards, Joel
