Re: [RFC 4/4] Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: add some references

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Henrik Austad <henrik@austad.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:08:36PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > > On 04/09/2015 11:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:39:08AM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > > >>>+ CPUs, with the first M - 1 tasks having a small worst case execution time
> > > >>>+ WCET_i=e and period equal to relative deadline P_i=D_i=P-1. The last task
> > > >>
> > > >>Normally, 'e' is used to denote an _arbitrarily_ small value, and I suspect
> > > >>that this is indeed the case here as well (you're going to describe
> > > >>Dhall's effect, right?). Perhaps make that point explicit?
> > > >>
> > > >>      T_i = {P_i, e, P_i}
> > > >
> > > >We're talking about \epsilon here, right?
> > > Right. I used "e" to make the thing more readable in a simple text document.
> > > 
> > > >Is it customary to use a regular 'e' in CS literature for that?
> > > I do not know... I just wanted to use one single character, and to avoid the "\"
> > > (which only makes sense to people using latex :)
> > > 
> > > But if you want I can use "epsilon" or "\epsilon"... Let me know
> > 
> > I'm fine either way, its just my math/physics brain piping up.
> 
> I'd vote for 'e' then (just to mess with peterz' brain and avoid some 
> confusing \'s).

Just make sure you explain the nomenclature in the document!

Thanks,

	Ingo