From the other side: Comparing and contrasting research results is almost impossible. Even if a lot of research happens on Linux there is no way to compare and

From the other side: Comparing and contrasting research results is almost impossible. Even if a lot of research happens on Linux there is no way to compare and contrast the results as researchers, most of the time, base their work on completely different base kernel versions. We talked about this last year and I have to admit that neither Peter nor myself found enough spare time to come up with an approach to create a framework on which the various research groups could base their scheduler of the day. We haven't forgotten about this, but while researchers have to write papers, we get our time occupied by other duties. This is almost entirely the Linux kernel's fault. The development pace on the kernel is quick and very few things are guaranteed to be stable. By the time my group had worked out a patch a release block was finished. I gain almost no benefit from sending this to LKML and I hear it's never worth the flames my colleagues get when you haven't done enough "work" for them. The worst was a colleague having to defend his patch from a paper to the kernel team. Who cares? The devs can take it or leave it, we don't have time for that crap.