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.
Thread beginning with comment 258907
To view parent comment, click here.
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 Score: 5

Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>I don't think it's true that CK didn't take user reports seriously

I don't think so too. This is the usual procedure "how to kill a critic" if he dares to open his mouth afterwards. Sometimes I think, they are more about politics than actually technology.

Edited 2007-07-28 10:29

Reply Parent Score: 5

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Part of being a maintainer is saying no. In fact, good maintainers might say no a lot more than they say yes. When they're two competing solutions to the same problem, the maintainer certainly has to say no to a least one of them. The goal is not to hurt anyone's feelings, but to keep the project moving in the right direction for most users.

This isn't grade school. Just because you spend a whole bunch of time toiling unpaid on some code doesn't imply that you're entitled to get your code merged. You don't get brownie points for being a good guy or trying really hard. Code doesn't get merged on the grounds that everybody deserves a chance to contribute.

Code gets rejected all the time, and developers almost always take it in stride. Sometimes they make a fuss, and you can't have that in a mature project. If the developer won't stop complaining, the maintainer might have to take them down a peg in order to put out the flames.

The maintainers of Subversion did an excellent talk on people management in open-source projects where they stressed the importance of removing poisonous personalities from your project. Sometimes you have show good developers the door if they can't work appropriately in the context of the project as a whole. At the end of the day, the project is more important than any single developer, however productive and talented they might be.

Maybe SD is better in some respects while CFS is more consistent overall. But the primary reason why Linus chose CFS is because Ingo is a very reliable and experienced maintainer who's had at least twice as much code rejected than Con has ever submitted. He won't take his ball and go home, whereas CK apparently will.

Finally, plugsched is a bad idea because scheduler proliferation is evil. There wouldn't be just two or three schedulers, there would be ten, each one representing a major configuration that needs to be tested. Anyone can write a scheduler that's optimized for a particular workload, but that defeats the purpose. The scheduler should perform consistently in a variety of workloads.

I hope that SD lives on as a patchset for those workloads that benefit from it. But one solid scheduler is all we need in the mainline kernel. CFS is the right choice for the long haul. We'll all benefit from the improvement over the O(1) scheduler, so we should be happy.

Reply Parent Score: 5

gpierce Member since:
2005-07-07

Con Kolivas' personality is "poisonous" or his work poisoning the kernel? Are you serious? This guy, more than any one else, brought to attention and a solution to the problems of desktop performance. Linus is human--a high-acheiving one, driven by ego and reputation--and his behavior in this matter is observable in most individuals who acquire national prestige and reputation when they are threatened. They first actively seek to find fault on technical grounds, decline to allow wider testing of alternative ideas and methods (in Con's case--disallowing entry into the mainline kernel), and when that fails attack the individual as being unstable, untrustworthy adducing any vocalized frustration on Con's part as proof of their unsuitability.

Reply Parent Score: 6

ShawnX Member since:
2006-08-04

I'm going to take issue with this 'maintainer'. One, Con had lots of people testing SD, including myself. I myself provided feedback to Con on IRC. Second, your excuse that 'scheduler proliferation is evil' is stupid. In fact, we should have more pluggable mechanisms in the kernel to allow for greater testing capabilities. I'm truly ashamed to see Linux development go down the drain in the same direction as closed-like projects do with their closed mind, closed attitude towards developers.

Edited 2007-07-28 18:54

Reply Parent Score: 3

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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).


Its the old story of smart people - the smarter they are, something has got to give, they're either, weird, arrogant, strange, violent or some other trait.

I've seen the debates that occur on lkml - and the end of the day its up to you as to whether you wish to contribute and be part of the community. No one is forcing you to join and contribute to Linux - if you don't like how things are going, there is nothing stopping you from forking the Linux code and creating your own community.

Thats the thing; if there was such a major issue with Linus, someone would have forked Linux, created a parallel community. All things consistant, if there was such a dislike for Linus's mannerisms, he would have isolated long ago - so I'm assuming he is doing something right (not that I agree with him or how he holds himself).

On a bigger issue, this is the reason, although qualified in IT, I don't work in it. I don't work in it because of what I've seen and experienced; I definately don't want to work in a place like Microsoft were I am constantly pushed, prodded and probed by upper management, expecting me constantly on the defensive about every decision being made, constantly having to advocate and explain every possible position made then interrogated.

I can see why so few females are involved with IT - this constant agressiveness thats required. For me, I prefer working in a team as a team rather than simply a bunch of individuals who happen to be under the title of being a group. Peoples egos, unwillingness to discuss in a polite way seems to go way over the head of many people as I've seen.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

"
I can see why so few females are involved with IT - this constant agressiveness thats required. For me, I prefer working in a team as a team rather than simply a bunch of individuals who happen to be under the title of being a group. Peoples egos, unwillingness to discuss in a polite way seems to go way over the head of many people as I've seen.
"

Oh, so it is REQUIRED now? No, people make it that way. It doesn't have to BE that way. People become aggressive and insulting because they want their way over someone else's way.

I am guessing that Linus is so famous now that the people who work with him and get their faces slapped actually ENJOY getting their faces slapped by "the great Linus."

Reply Parent Score: 4