linux-kernel

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-id: <200703201126.41114.jos@mijnkamer.nl>
Date:	Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:26:40 +0100
From:	jos poortvliet <jos@...nkamer.nl>
To:	ck@....kolivas.org
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@...e.fr>,
	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: RSDL v0.31

Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > > >> Stock scheduler wins easily, no contest.
> > > >
> > > > What happens when you renice X ?
> > >
> > > Dunno -- not necessary with the stock scheduler.
> >
> > Could you try something like renice -10 $(pidof Xorg) ?
>
> Could you try something as simple and accepting that maybe this is a
> problem?
>
> Quite frankly, I was *planning* on merging RSDL very early after 2.6.21,
> but there is one thing that has turned me completely off the whole thing:
>
>  - the people involved seem to be totally unwilling to even admit there
>    might be a problem.
>
> This is like alcoholism. If you cannot admit that you might have a
> problem, you'll never get anywhere. And quite frankly, the RSDL proponents
> seem to be in denial ("we're always better", "it's your problem if the old
> scheduler works better", "just one report of old scheduler being better").
>
> And the thing is, if people aren't even _willing_ to admit that there may
> be issues, there's *no*way*in*hell* I will merge it even for testing.
> Because the whole and only point of merging RSDL was to see if it could
> replace the old scheduler, and the most important feature in that case is
> not whether it is perfect, BUT WHETHER ANYBODY IS INTERESTED IN TRYING TO
> FIX THE INEVITABLE PROBLEMS!

Con simply isn't available right now, but you're right. RSDL isn't ready yet, 
imho, there seem to be some regressions (and I'm bitten by them, too). But if 
con's past behaviour says anything about how he's going to behave in the 
future (and according to my psych prof it's the most reliable predictor ;-)), 
I'm pretty sure he'll jump on this when he's healthy again. He's gone through 
great lengths to fix problems with staircase, no matter how obscure, so I see 
no reason why he wouldn't do the same for RSDL... Though scheduler problems 
can be extremely hard to reproduce on other hardware.

> See?
>
> Can you people not see that the way you're doing that "RSDL is perfect"
> chorus in the face of people who report problems, you're just making it
> totally unrealistic that it will *ever* get merged.
>
> So unless somebody steps up to the plate and actually *talks* about the
> problem reports, and admits that maybe RSDL will need some tweaking, I'm
> not going to merge it.
>
> Because there is just _one_ thing that is more important than code - and
> that is the willingness to fix the code...
>
> 		Linus
> _______________________________________________
> http://ck.kolivas.org/faqs/replying-to-mailing-list.txt
> ck mailing list - mailto: ck@....kolivas.org
> http://vds.kolivas.org/mailman/listinfo/ck

-- 
Disclaimer:

Alles wat ik doe denk en zeg is gebaseerd op het wereldbeeld wat ik nu heb. 
Ik ben niet verantwoordelijk voor wijzigingen van de wereld, of het beeld wat 
ik daarvan heb, noch voor de daaruit voortvloeiende gedragingen van mezelf. 
Alles wat ik zeg is aardig bedoeld, tenzij expliciet vermeld.

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives