Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
quoted text
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Michael Chang wrote:
> > I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
> > that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel.
>
> I did that myself, so that's a non-issue.
>
> No. The complaints were about the CK scheduler not being as responsive
> under load as even the _old_ scheduler was. I don't know why people ignore
> this fact. It was a long thread back in March or April, and I'm pretty
> sure the CK mailing list was cc'd.

Of course it wasn't. The speed of tasks slows proportionally with the amoun=
t=20
of system usage. That's the whole point, and CFS can't fix that either, can=
=20
it?

quoted text
> Sure, most people don't actually have load-averages above ten etc, but
> it's important to do those well _too_.
>
> 			Linus

<sarcasm>
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=3D18350&comment_id=3D259044

Now I wonder. Apparently, one person complaining about SD was reason to kee=
p=20
it out http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=3D18350&comment_id=3D258997

Will this first post stop CFS from entering the kernel?
</sarcasm>


Now I'll try to be a bit more constructive. I hope your benevolent=20
dictatorship allows self reflection.

Sure, the difference in behaviour (not in code) between SD and CFS is small=
,=20
and for me it doesn't matter. I'm fine with CFS in the kernel, it's a huge=
=20
improvement over the previous one. But why, while there was a seemingly goo=
d=20
alternative, did THAT one stay in that long? And this argument goes for mor=
e=20
code 'out there', btw.
=20
 Some things get into the kernel, other don't. Some get in too soon, others=
=20
too late. Sure. But shouldn't we try to improve this process, instead of=20
saying 'it is what it is, get over it'?
=20
 For me, that's the purpose of this whole discussion. We're losing valuable=
=20
code and contributors, yet at the same time code which isn't mature yet=20
enters the kernel. Acknowledging there is a problem is the first step in=20
solving it.

 Of course, I don't have answers - but I do feel strongly that you think th=
ere=20
is no issue. Is there, or isn't there? And if there is, what do you plan to=
=20
do about it?



Your influence on the behaviour of the people around you, your 'lieutenants=
',=20
is huge. Larger than you might think. And in many cases, ppl following=20
someone behave more extreme. That's a big reason why the LKML isn't very=20
polite nor inviting (mind you, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing=
,=20
that's up to you to decide).

You might want to think about ways to improve the whole process. Again, I'm=
 no=20
Linus, it's your call. And you can make a big difference, I'm sure.


Greetings,

Jos