linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:19:51 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, Zach Carter <linux@...hcarter.com>,
	buddabrod <buddabrod@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 19:52 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 29 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> > > > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...]
> > > >
> > > > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it
> > > > might be a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46?
> > >
> > > In any case, it might be a good idea because Mike encountered a
> > > problem that nobody could reproduce. [...]
> >
> > actually, Mark Lord too reproduced something similar to Mike's results.
> > Please try those workloads yourself.
> 
> I see no suggestion that either Mark or Mike have tested, or for that matter 
> _have any intention of testing_, the current version of SD without fancy 
> renicing or anything involved. Willy I grealy appreciate you trying, but I 
> don't know why you're bothering even trying here since clearly 1. Ingo is the 
> scheduler maintainer 2. he's working on a competing implementation and 3. in 
> my excellent physical and mental state I seem to have slighted the two 
> testers (both?) somewhere along the line. Mike feels his testing was a 
> complete waste of time yet it would be ludicrous for me to say that SD didn't 
> evolve 20 versions further due to his earlier testing, and was the impetus 
> for you to start work on CFS. The crunch came that we couldn't agree that 
> fair was appropriate for mainline and we parted ways. That fairness has not 
> been a problem for his view on CFS though but he has only tested older 
> versions of SD that still had bugs.

The crunch for me came when you started hand-waving and spin-doctoring
as you are doing now.  Listening to twisted echoes of my voice is not my
idea of a good time.

	-Mike

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/