On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Valent Turkovic wrote: >>Hi devels & all, >>I'll be brief so not to take much of your time. >> >>I read this article [1] about general Linux kernel development and how >>desktop use is ignored by mainstream kernel developers, and how >>desktop performance is suffering because of that. >> >>I took out this quote to summarize: >>"I think the kernel developers at large haven't got the faintest idea >>just how big the problems in userspace are. It is a very small brave >>minority that are happy to post to lkml, and I keep getting users >>telling me on IRC, in person, and via my own mailing list, what their >>problems are. And they've even become fearful of me, even though I've >>never viewed myself as a real kernel developer." >> >>What is the status of Fedora kernel regarding specific patches that >>make desktop perform better? Is is true that mostly big vendor issues > > The status is the same here as it is for every other kind of patch. > Fedora tries very hard to not carry additional patches. With the > exception of a few things like exec-shield, if the patches aren't > upstream or headed there rapidly, they generally aren't carried. > > It's easier to talk about specific patches when they are pointed out. > Neither the interview, nor you did that so I don't really know what > sort of patches you're talking about. Interview focused on specific issues - "Staircase Deadline CPU scheduler" to quote again from the artcle (page 2/3) "The Staircase Deadline CPU scheduler. Initially started as a side project from the Staircase CPU scheduler I soon realised that it was possible to have excellent interactivity while fixing the horrible fairness issues that an unfair design had. Furthermore, it actually improved interactivity issues elsewhere that ended up being fairness problems, and fairness is of course paramount to servers and multiuser environments." and also: "One very vocal user found that the unfair behaviour in the mainline scheduler was something he came to expect. A flamewar of sorts erupted at the time, because to fix 100% of the problems with the CPU scheduler we had to sacrifice interactivity on some workloads. It wasn't a dramatic loss of interactivity, but it was definitely there. Rather than use 'nice' to proportion CPU according to where the user told the operating system it should be, the user believed it was the kernel's responsibility to guess. As it turns out, it is the fact that guessing means that no matter how hard and how smart you make the CPU scheduler, it will get it wrong some of the time. The more it tries to guess, the worse will be the corner cases of misbehaving." Sorry for quoting, but I'm not a developer, just a curious user :) Thank you very much for replying. Valent. -- http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
