Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Jul 2007 09:04 UTC
Linux "People who think SD was 'perfect' were simply ignoring reality," Linus Torvalds began in a succinct explanation as to why he chose the CFS scheduler written by Ingo Molnar instead of the SD scheduler written by Con Kolivas. He continued, "sadly, that seemed to include Con too, which was one of the main reasons that I never [entertained] the notion of merging SD for very long at all: Con ended up arguing against people who reported problems, rather than trying to work with them." He went on to stress the importance of working toward a solution that is good for everyone, "that was where the SD patches fell down. They didn't have a maintainer that I could trust to actually care about any other issues than his own." Update: OSNews user superstoned pointed us to the other side of the story.
Permalink for comment 258907
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
predictor
Member since:
2006-11-30

Having lurked lkml for years... it's incredible that people still want to do stuff for Linus, when he keeps bashing people like he does after they've spent days and nights shipping code to Linux (lot of CK's stuff have been important drivers for improving the kernel). Sure, Linus says people do whatever they want to do and he reserves himself the right to call people stupid and ugly at will. Fine, but to me, he increasingly comes across as narcissistic sociopath (especially after the google techtalk craze).

I don't think it's true that CK didn't take user reports seriously, but at any rate: give the man some credit, Linus!

As far as SD vs. CFS, my experiments shows that SD is indeed better at extremely cpu intensive workloads, while CFS has an edge on mixed workloads. With a decent plugsched and someone taking on the task to maintain SD (now that CK has quit), we should have both in the kernel.

IMNSHO.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5