Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1

Carlo Florendo
2007-08-01T02:54:44Z

Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
>> And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical
>> comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best. The root of all
>> the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's author on why his
>> scheduler began to be compared with CFS.
>
> Legitimate emotional reaction for being locked out of the development
> process. There's a very human aspect to this, yes, a negative human
> aspect that pervade Linux kernel development and is overly defensive and
> protective of new ideas.

Yes, the reaction was legitimate but it could have been better. It would
have benefited everyone if instead of posting rants, numbers and patches or
suggested solutions were posted. Up until today, some posters that
complain on how CFS fairs worse than SD simply post reports that say:

"I use this system in this way and it does not fair well with cfs!"

Look at this one for example:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/31/199

It looks technical but it isn't.

The author simply stated that he built his own lightweight Linux box that
specializes in audio but there has not been any technical characteristic of
the problem. We don't even know the audio libraries he's using but simply
claimed that he wrote his own.

The report, if I were the one to debug it, is completely useless since it
does not even give some reproducability hints nor technical characteristics
of the system.

This is what some of the SD fan-boys do. Rant.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards,

Carlo

--
Carlo Florendo
Softare Engineer/Network Co-Administrator
Astra Philippines Inc.
UP-Ayala Technopark, Diliman 1101, Quezon City
Philippines
http://www.astra.ph

--
The Astra Group of Companies
5-3-11 Sekido, Tama City
Tokyo 206-0011, Japan