[PATCH-perfbook] count: Fix typos

[PATCH-perfbook] count: Fix typos

[Johann Klähn]

Signed-off-by: Johann Klähn <johann@jklaehn.de>
---
Hi Paul,

I'm really enjoying the book and hope that I can contribute back a little bit in
the form of small fixes.  As this is my first patch to this list, please point
out anything I could improve in the future (e.g., granularity of patches).

Thanks
Johann
---
 count/count.tex | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/count/count.tex b/count/count.tex
index d2b39904..f4e74c13 100644
--- a/count/count.tex
+++ b/count/count.tex
@@ -3237,7 +3237,7 @@ Summarizing the summary:
 	\Cref{fig:count:Atomic Increment Scalability on x86}
 	illustrates this point:
 	Atomic increment might be completely acceptable for a two-CPU
-	system, but be completely inadequate for an eight-CPU system.
+	system, but can be completely inadequate for an eight-CPU system.
 \end{enumerate}
 
 \begin{figure}
@@ -3251,7 +3251,7 @@ Summarizing still further, we have the ``big three'' methods of
 increasing performance and scalability, namely
 (1)~\emph{partitioning} over CPUs or threads,
 (2)~\emph{batching} so that more work can be done by each expensive
-synchronization operations, and
+synchronization operation, and
 (3)~\emph{weakening} synchronization operations where feasible.
 As a rough rule of thumb, you should apply these methods in this order,
 as was noted earlier in the discussion of
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH-perfbook] count: Fix typos

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:18:15PM +0100, Johann Klähn wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Johann Klähn <johann@jklaehn.de>
> ---
> Hi Paul,
> 
> I'm really enjoying the book and hope that I can contribute back a little bit in
> the form of small fixes.  As this is my first patch to this list, please point
> out anything I could improve in the future (e.g., granularity of patches).

Queued and pushed, thank you!  I did take the liberty of changing your
added "can" to a "nevertheless".  Does that work for you?

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks
> Johann
> ---
>  count/count.tex | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/count/count.tex b/count/count.tex
> index d2b39904..f4e74c13 100644
> --- a/count/count.tex
> +++ b/count/count.tex
> @@ -3237,7 +3237,7 @@ Summarizing the summary:
>  	\Cref{fig:count:Atomic Increment Scalability on x86}
>  	illustrates this point:
>  	Atomic increment might be completely acceptable for a two-CPU
> -	system, but be completely inadequate for an eight-CPU system.
> +	system, but can be completely inadequate for an eight-CPU system.
>  \end{enumerate}
>  
>  \begin{figure}
> @@ -3251,7 +3251,7 @@ Summarizing still further, we have the ``big three'' methods of
>  increasing performance and scalability, namely
>  (1)~\emph{partitioning} over CPUs or threads,
>  (2)~\emph{batching} so that more work can be done by each expensive
> -synchronization operations, and
> +synchronization operation, and
>  (3)~\emph{weakening} synchronization operations where feasible.
>  As a rough rule of thumb, you should apply these methods in this order,
>  as was noted earlier in the discussion of
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

Re: [PATCH-perfbook] count: Fix typos

[Johann Klähn]

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 17:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Queued and pushed, thank you!  I did take the liberty of changing your
> added "can" to a "nevertheless".  Does that work for you?

Sure, in that case maybe also remove the second “be”?
| Atomic increment might be completely acceptable for a two-CPU
| system, but nevertheless completely inadequate for an eight-CPU system.

Thanks
Johann

Re: [PATCH-perfbook] count: Fix typos

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:12:46PM +0100, Johann Klähn wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 17:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Queued and pushed, thank you!  I did take the liberty of changing your
> > added "can" to a "nevertheless".  Does that work for you?
> 
> Sure, in that case maybe also remove the second “be”?
> | Atomic increment might be completely acceptable for a two-CPU
> | system, but nevertheless completely inadequate for an eight-CPU system.

Good point in that the sentence is still a bit awkward.  So what I have
done is to add a LaTeX comment that will remind me to think harder
about it.  If I don't get a good replacement by (say) March, please
remind me about it.

							Thanx, Paul