Intel Chief Evangelist Comments on Linux Scheduler 178
ByeByeWintel writes "James Reinders is Intel's Chief Evangelist for Intel's Software Development Products. In a
recent interview on Devx.com he stated: 'If I could get ONE wish fulfilled would be for OS scheduling to focus on processes, and not threads, for scheduling. And demand that processes manage their scheduling of threads ... There is a lot of opportunity for operating systems to offer these types of control in the 'running of applications' interfaces. I'd like an OS to let me specify the 'world' my application runs in (which processors, how many, etc.) These interfaces are available in Windows at run time (the task manager will let you adjust where a running task can go).'"
So do it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Free Software, you can add whatever you want.
BAD headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Resume your regularly scheduled Con vs Ingo flamewar.
Re:Puh-leeeeze! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:which processors (Score:1, Insightful)
OR maby you don't understand what he is asking for.
Re:Hello?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot would be kicked out of Journalism School (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the first time I've felt a need to complain about
Re:I don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You think maybe they have other things to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You think maybe they have other things to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You think maybe they have other things to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You think maybe they have other things to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
You expect every fucking suggestion to be implemented? If not then what DO you suggest? The developers simply say that they are going to do X, if you want to do Y then you need to do it yourself. You can't implement every bloody possible feature in the damn universe, which is apparently what you want. Instead they implement what they think meets their own goals. They claim that this is enough to work for everyone. It isn't perfect for everyone but NOTHING ever is, if someone wants a feature desperately they either need to implement it themselves or find someone else to do it.
Re:You think maybe they have other things to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's great. That's what open source is all about.
>Part of having a successful product is listening to what people want and working to implement that.
Ah I see where you got confused.
Linux is not a product. It's already successful.
Re:Ok, that's completely fine (Score:4, Insightful)
As for considering people's ideas, yeah, great, developers do that, all the time. The problem is when the developer says "look, it won't work" and the people harp on about how right they are. That's often when the DIY attitude comes out, because nothing says "you were wrong" like running code.
Really a sad comment on society (Score:4, Insightful)
You are right. The way free software works is that if you want something done, you either do it yourself, or you pay somebody to do it for you.
Somehow, this has become at odds with mainstream society. People have come to expect that if you want something done, you whine about it for long enough, and someone else will do it for you.
It is a society of builders and whiners.
I know which side I'm on.
Re:the real world, too. (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that the scheduler should focus on processes rather than threads is one of those well-known wrong ideas that comes up all the time. The thinking is that it doesn't make sense to give twice as much processing time to a process just because it uses two threads. The thing is, does it make sense to give a job twice as much processing time just because it uses two processes rather than two threads?
There is no reason for the scheduler to treat a thread better or worse just because of which process it belongs to. There is simply no rational defense for this position.