Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Nov 2010 22:48 UTC, submitted by Michael
Linux "In recent weeks and months there has been quite a bit of work towards improving the responsiveness of the Linux desktop with some very significant milestones building up recently and new patches continuing to come. This work is greatly improving the experience of the Linux desktop when the computer is withstanding a great deal of CPU load and memory strain. Fortunately, the exciting improvements are far from over. There is a new patch that has not yet been merged but has undergone a few revisions over the past several weeks and it is quite small - just over 200 lines of code - but it does wonders for the Linux desktop."
Thread beginning with comment 450293
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by tetek
by gilboa on Wed 17th Nov 2010 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by tetek"
gilboa
Member since:
2005-07-06

Your question is based on two assumptions:
A. Kernel development (especially code profiling) is easy.
B. Finding the right balance between interactive and non-interactive processes is easy - especially when dealing with generic kernel schedulers, such as the Linux scheduler.

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by tetek
by tetek on Wed 17th Nov 2010 12:03 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by tetek"
tetek Member since:
2010-10-04

OK, but Linux has community for about what? 15 years? For 15 years no one done it right? What changed? It was pure luck? We have now better tools? We are smarter now (as a population)? We know more about operation systems theory?
And especially - why no one bother to do it earlier? It's system core - it has to be top - notch!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by tetek
by gilboa on Wed 17th Nov 2010 13:35 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tetek"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

EDIT: Re-reading. Comment too aggressive. Please ignore.

Long answer.
1. During the past -19- years, the Linux scheduler has changed more than once. Each was designed with a different workload in mind; Each was designed to used on a different hardware. (Important!)
2. During the years, that average server moved from a dual socket / dual CPU's to dual/quad socket / 6-12 (!!!) cores / 12 threads. The average workstation jumped from a single CPU to 4-12 cores/threads.
3. The CFQ scheduler is ~3 year old.
4. The Linux kernel is fairly well suited for server workloads.

Now, given the above, the Linux scheduler is under constant development as the baseline requirements continue to evolve (See item 2). As developers gain experience with the relatively new CFQ scheduler and the new hardware classes (E.g. 24 thread workstations and 12 thread desktops), they gain new insight into the how to solve existing (and new) problems - in this case: low responsiveness (?) when dealing with desktop workloads.
Keep in mind that while trying to fix this problem, the scheduler developers must be certain that their patches do not drop the kernel's server workload performance, as the server market is Linux' bread and butter.

You are reading far too much into the size of the patch.

- Gilboa

Edited 2010-11-17 13:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: Comment by tetek
by asdf on Wed 17th Nov 2010 13:46 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tetek"
asdf Member since:
2009-09-23

Sigh, it has been improved for certain use cases. What the hell is so difficult about that? Gees, what do phrases like "done right", "top-notch" even mean outside of marketing context?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by tetek
by Soulbender on Wed 17th Nov 2010 16:38 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tetek"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

.

Edited 2010-11-17 16:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by tetek
by Laurence on Wed 17th Nov 2010 17:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tetek"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

OK, but Linux has community for about what? 15 years? For 15 years no one done it right? What changed? It was pure luck? We have now better tools? We are smarter now (as a population)? We know more about operation systems theory? And especially - why no one bother to do it earlier? It's system core - it has to be top - notch!

Aside what the others have already answered, I'd like to add the following:
Windows' kernel is under constant development too. In fact, this is the case for all kernels on all active OSs.

Reply Parent Score: 2