Comment What is the real problem? (Score 1) 455
People have gotten so fed up over non-inclusion of a pluggable scheduler that they are considering a fork? Usually something like this means they are really asking for a fork to change leadership, or at least take things in a new direction.
Now, can someone honestly tell me what would be wrong with a pluggable scheduler, besides saying "Linus/Ingo say no"? Think for yourselves and answer. Other places in the kernel have selectable things, like a selectable IO scheduler. But selectable CPU scheduler? No way! The ole "it will confuse users" is really a bogus argument. Non-power users can take a default scheduler and not lift a finger. There isn't going to be a scheduler that is optimal for ALL loads, much like there is not a single allocator that works for "optimal" for all allocation loads, nor a perfect IO scheduler.
What I think I'm seeing is plain ego-tism. Not invented here type of stuff. Perhaps giving users a choice of schedulers in some form or another (pluggable or compile option) would mean Ingo doesn't know it all about scheduling. Now, we can't have that now can we? The scheduler algorithms would probably be simpler if they didn't try to do it all with one, by the way, and you could probably eek out a little more performance because of that.
Some of the people pontificating on the issue used to think source code control systems were for the weak minded, and that debuggers should be outlawed, if you all can remember that far back.
Now, can someone honestly tell me what would be wrong with a pluggable scheduler, besides saying "Linus/Ingo say no"? Think for yourselves and answer. Other places in the kernel have selectable things, like a selectable IO scheduler. But selectable CPU scheduler? No way! The ole "it will confuse users" is really a bogus argument. Non-power users can take a default scheduler and not lift a finger. There isn't going to be a scheduler that is optimal for ALL loads, much like there is not a single allocator that works for "optimal" for all allocation loads, nor a perfect IO scheduler.
What I think I'm seeing is plain ego-tism. Not invented here type of stuff. Perhaps giving users a choice of schedulers in some form or another (pluggable or compile option) would mean Ingo doesn't know it all about scheduling. Now, we can't have that now can we? The scheduler algorithms would probably be simpler if they didn't try to do it all with one, by the way, and you could probably eek out a little more performance because of that.
Some of the people pontificating on the issue used to think source code control systems were for the weak minded, and that debuggers should be outlawed, if you all can remember that far back.
