Extensible scheduler class rejected

Posted Jul 28, 2023 8:29 UTC (Fri) by spacefrogg (subscriber, #119608)
In reply to: Extensible scheduler class rejected by andrewsh
Parent article: Extensible scheduler class rejected

Is this a general remark on his communication style or does it refer to his specific answer? I have no personal interest in application-specific schedulers but found his argument very compelling. Today more than ever must the kernel force applications to not unduly mandate customer compliance. Just an example: BigCorp A, which has the majority on <customers> computer, enforces using the BadSched scheduler for the mere purpose of hurting FreeAlternative B's application performance on the same system to promote their own solution. Insert Chrome and Firefox or any of the other duals, here, to get the picture...

Extensible scheduler class rejected

Posted Jul 28, 2023 8:35 UTC (Fri) by andrewsh (subscriber, #71043) [Link] (1 responses)

It’s a general remark on his communication style, but it’s also quite visible in this particular response. Somehow, most of emails from him I’ve seen were either passive aggressive, or outright very rude. He’s definitely not a person I would enjoy working with.

Extensible scheduler class rejected

Posted Jul 28, 2023 13:52 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Is he the sort of person who is (usually) correct in his gut feel? Sometimes you can present something to me and I'll just hate it because it "feels wrong". That can be a real sixth sense.

That said, a simple "call BPF to ask user space what it thinks" shouldn't be ringing any alarm bells. Those people who don't want BPF scheduling don't install any BPF schedulers, those who do take responsibility for the resulting cock-ups ...

(And a general purpose distro should have no need for any BPF schedulers.)

Cheers,
Wol