|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Why not mainline it?

Why not mainline it?

Posted Apr 21, 2017 2:18 UTC (Fri) by conman (guest, #14830)
In reply to: Why not mainline it? by droundy
Parent article: The MuQSS CPU scheduler

Linus has said in the past that he absolutely detests specialisation and doesn't want more than one scheduler in mainline. It's the same reason the "plugsched" pluggable CPU scheduler framework that went along with the original alternative schedulers, staircase, RSDL and staircase deadline was abandoned. Therefore it would have to replace the mainline scheduler en-bloc. As a hobby amateur coder working on a scheduler in one's spare time, there would be zero chance of creating something that meets all the criteria of trumping every mainline performance benchmark and feature to replace CFS.


to post comments

Why not mainline it?

Posted Apr 21, 2017 4:57 UTC (Fri) by liam (guest, #84133) [Link]

Your comment brought this to mind

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discu...

It's an unfortunate thing that success can have downsides.

Lots of block schedulers though.

Posted Apr 30, 2017 5:11 UTC (Sun) by gmatht (subscriber, #58961) [Link]

I find it ironic that the LWN story next to this was "Two new block I/O schedulers for 4.12".

Any reason why? I guess there is a big single jump from rotational to SSD block devices that justifies at least two specialised block schedulers.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds