Extensible scheduler class rejected

> So developing a BPF scheduler is automatically better for all workloads?

Why would it be? It doesn't need to be, because it's not claiming to be the one scheduler to rule them all. I see it as tool that allows people to solve their problems and experiment with alternatives without having to rebuild their kernel each time. It's not trying to replace the existing scheduler. It rather makes it simpler, because then the main scheduler only has to be best for *almost* all workloads, rather than all.

Peter obviously disagrees with this assessment, that's his prerogative. If enterprise software was going to depend on certain scheduler configurations they would have done that already. "Thou shalt only run with the kernel we give you" is not exactly unheard of. Instead we now have the kernel developers requiring people to use out of tree patches, which hardly seems better.