RDSL and ignoring feedback
Posted Jul 26, 2007 2:38 UTC (Thu) by zlynx
Parent article: Still waiting for swap prefetch
But some users were reporting real regressions with RSDL and were being told that those regressions were to be expected and would not be fixed. This behavior soured Linus on RSDL and set the stage for Ingo Molnar's CFS scheduler. Some (not all) people are convinced that Con's scheduler was the better design, but refusal to engage with negative feedback doomed the whole exercise.
I was following most of that on LKML as it happened, and the way that I saw it was that a guy testing RSDL was reporting the fact that his X server now got 25% CPU instead of 75% as a regression.
Con did respond. He said the scheduler was fair, that was the design, and that he (the tester) could renice X to -10 or -15 if he wished.
I don't see how else Con could respond to that. RSDL was supposed to be fair. Giving X 75% isn't fair. There's just no way to resolve those two things.
to post comments)