On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:You snipped a key part of the argument. Namely: Another difference is that when it comes to schedulers, I feel like I actually can make an informed decision. Which means that I'm perfectly happy to just make that decision, and take the flak that I get for it. And I do (both decide, and get flak). That's my job. which you seem to not have read or understood (neither did apparently anybody on slashdot). Blah. Bogus and pointless argument removed. When it comes to schedulers, "performance" *is* pretty damn well-defined, and has effectively universal meaning. The arguments that "servers" have a different profile than "desktop" is pure and utter garbage, and is perpetuated by people who don't know what they are talking about. The whole notion of "server" and "desktop" scheduling being different is nothing but crap. I don't know who came up with it, or why people continue to feed the insane ideas. Why do people think that servers don't care about latency? Why do people believe that desktop doesn't have multiple processors or through-put intensive loads? Why are people continuing this *idiotic* scheduler discussion? Really - not only is the whole "desktop scheduler" argument totally bogus to begin with (and only brought up by people who either don't know anything about it, or who just want to argue, regardless of whether the argumen is valid or not), quite frankly, when you say that it's the "same issue" as with security models, you're simply FULL OF SH*T. The issue with LSM is that security people simply cannot even agree on the model. It has nothing to do with performance. It's about management, and it's about totally different models. Have you even *looked* at the differences between AppArmor and SELinux? Did you look at SMACK? They are all done by people who are interested in security, but have totally different notions of what "security" even *IS*ALL*ABOUT. In contrast, anybody who claims that the CPU scheduler doesn't know what it's all about is just tripping. And anybody who claims that desktop workloads are so radically different from server workloads (or that the hardware is so different) is just totally out to lunch. So next time, think five minutes before you start your argument. Linus -
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Mark Lord | 2.6.25-rc8: FTP transfer errors |
| Marcin Slusarz | Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1: build failure (x86) |
| Balbir Singh | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] RSS controller core |
git: | |
| bcpa | Binkley/Rfmaill/Cnews scripts?.. |
| Rogier Wolff | Re: MIPS R3000 board to run Linux, anyone? |
| Gary Kahn | compiled ghostscript, got 2 megabyte executable |
| Joshua Lobel | Does anyone know anything about LOCUS' DOS MERGE running on Linux |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
