3 ms·
The main takeaway from this article should be that if you want to make changes that improve latency, make a benchmark tool first. If you can't measure it you ca
by tuna74 2y ago
The main takeaway from this article should be that if you want to make changes that improve latency, make a benchmark tool first. If you can't measure it you can't really discuss the pros and cons with the implementation.
- zaphirplane 2y agoThere is more, the push he got from the maintainer was horrible and I read the maintainer released a more elegant but same idea What’s the maintainer name ?
- ahartmetz 2y agoIt's a bit strange in the article. It mentions Ingo Molnar and also "the maintainer" as a separate person. I thought Ingo Molnar was the maintainer. Anyway, Molnar landed CFS in 2007. The scheduler is EEVDF since 2023, a design that AFAIU comes much closer to Con Kolivas' goals (i.e. no latency spikes for interactive - or in this case any - processes)... 16+ years later.
- tuna74 2y agoI think that is an exaggeration. The maintainers and Linus T. simply didn't care about the things that Kolivas cared about. However, it is much easier to talk about these things if there is actual data you can point to and that did not seem to be available.
- zaphirplane 2y agoAnd here we are again with a maintainer blocking rust because they feel no one should add rust users of “his” subsystem. The idea all the maintainers are perfect is not a good thing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43127568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43127568