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 258998
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So what? Big deal
by WereCatf on Sat 28th Jul 2007 15:21 UTC
Member since:

IMHO this has all gone by and far out of hand. Some things do get in the kernel, some don't. That's just the way it is. If you can't handle that then don't, you're free to stop caring. I can't really say much about CK cos I don't know him as a person and I see lots of very biased arguments both against him and in favor of him, but yeah, Linus treated him quite coldly. But I'd assume he does that to everyone else too.

I'm just wondering the whole scheduler thing..How many of you people actually can explain what it is a scheduler does and on what grounds is CK's work better than Ingo's? I hear that Con's one is better for desktop and Ingo's is better for mixed workloads so in my view it might be a good idea to include both and just select either one depending on whether it's going to be used on a desktop or not. But well, I've been using the old scheduler for god knows how long and my desktop works just fine without either of those schedulers...

Reply Score: 3

RE: So what? Big deal
by superstoned on Sat 28th Jul 2007 17:49 in reply to "So what? Big deal"
superstoned Member since:

Sure, the diff between SD and CFS is small, and for me it doesn't matter. I'm fine with CFS in the kernel, it's a huge improvement over the previous one. But why, while there was a good alternative, did THAT one stay in that long?

Some things get into the kernel, other don't. Some get in too soon, others too late. Sure. But shouldn't we try to improve this process, instead of saying 'it is what it is, get over it'?

For me, that's the purpose of this whole discussion. We're losing valuable code and contributors, yet at the same time code which isn't mature yet enters the kernel. Acknowledging this is a problem is the first step in solving it.

Reply Parent Score: 5