Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 22:47 UTC
Linux Ingo Molnar released a new patchset titled the 'Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler'. He explained, "this project is a complete rewrite of the Linux task scheduler. My goal is to address various feature requests and to fix deficiencies in the vanilla scheduler that were suggested/found in the past few years, both for desktop scheduling and for server scheduling workloads."
Thread beginning with comment 233243
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: in other song
by sbergman27 on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE: in other song"
Member since:

Use your vendor provided kernel.

It's gone through more testing. Expecting the final QA to be done by the kernel devs is a layering violation.

Final QA is a responsibility that rests squarely on the vendors' shoulders. The developers excel at developing. Let them each do their jobs.

If the distributor does not fulfill their responsibility, then find another.

The landscape has changed, and I perceive that there are many who are unwilling to adapt to this new world in which the kernel developers are not responsible for final QA.

Get a kernel off the street, and the risk is entirely yours.

This does not mean that the distributors are not also responsible for feeding their patches back to LKML. And it does not absolve the kernel devs from the responsibility of taking those patches seriously.

Welcome to the year 2.6.x. :-)

Edited 2007-04-23 23:13

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: in other song
by siride on Tue 24th Apr 2007 01:55 in reply to "RE[2]: in other song"
siride Member since:

No other project has this sort of nonsense. If KDE has a bug, then it is KDE's job to fix it, not Ubuntu's. It's great that distros try to fix some bugs, but this is more because they really need a polish product and don't have time to wait around for upstream to fix everything. That the kernel devs want to push everything off onto the distros is just laziness and arrogance. It's not a reasonable development model. For one, it's going to lead to splintering as each distro has it's own patchset and you are FORCED to use a distro's kernel since the vanilla kernels are unstable. This is not the optimal situation. If KDE or GNOME or Vi or any other project took this approach, people would be screaming about it. For some reason, when the kernel folks do stuff, everyone assumes that because it comes out of Linus's mouth, it's perfectly reasonable.

I, for one, am tired of the kernel dev's arrogance. It's producing a kernel that's getting less stable with time, even when the distros are maintaining it. There have been no real innovations for a while and the development process is a mess. I fear Linux will start to lose momentum in a few years, and it will be because of problems like this.

Reply Parent Score: 3