linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v9

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:	Mon, 07 May 2007 10:03:46 -0400
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
	buddabrod <buddabrod@...il.com>, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v9

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
> 
> I just thought I would mention this, because it is certainly on my 
> mind. I can't help wondering if other folks are also concerned about
> this. The thing is, why don't you just send your patches to Con who
> got this whole ball rolling and did a bunch of great work, proving
> beyond any reasonable doubt that he is capable of maintaining this
> subsystem, whatever algorithm is finally adopted? Are you worried 
> that Con might steal your thunder? That somehow the scheduler is
> yours alone? That you might be perceived as less of a genius if
> somebody else gets credit for their good work? NIH?
> 
> My perception is that you barged in to take over just when Con got 
> things moving after the scheduler sat and rotted for several years.
> If that is in any way accurate, then shame on you.
> 
Clearly you have no idea what's going on, or how development is done. 
These are mutually exclusive different ideas on what constitutes an 
optimal scheduler, and not in any way improvements on the same thing, 
but total replacements for the algorithm of the scheduler.

And Ingo has been doing scheduler work for a very long time, while until 
recently Con was working on the staircase scheduler as a solution for 
desktop use, and it was not (to my taste) a candidate for a general 
scheduler until the deadline discussion and some ideas from wli resulted 
in improvements resulting in more robust performance under typical 
server loads.

You also seem to be unaware of the work done by Nick Piggin in 
nicksched. There are a lot of mutually incompatible approaches being 
evaluated, and that's good for the future.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
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/