"Looking at these graphs (and the fixed one from your second email), it sure looks a lot like CFS is doing at *least* as well as the old scheduler in every single test, and doing much better in most of them (in addition it's much more consistent between runs)," Kyle Moffett noted regarding recent benchmarks run against the Completely Fair Scheduler by Rob Hussey. Kyle continued:
"This seems to jive with all the other benchmarks and overall empirical testing that everyone has been doing. Overall I have to say a job well done for Ingo, Peter, Con, and all the other major contributors to this impressive endeavor."
"In the patch you really remove _a_lot_ of stuff," commented Roman Zippel in his reaction to Ingo Molnar's latest updates to the Completely Fair Scheduler. Roman has been consistently critical of Ingo's efforts, asking questions and criticizing Ingo's feedback. He continued, "you also removed a lot of things I tried to get you to explain them to me. On the one hand I could be happy that these things are gone, as they were the major road block to splitting up my own patch. On the other hand it still leaves me somewhat unsatisfied, as I still don't know what that stuff was good for."
Ingo replied to Roman's technical concerns, and pointed out that he'd been traveling for the recent kernel summit, adding, "I bent backwards trying to somehow get you to cooperate with us (and I still haven't given up on that!) - instead of you disparaging CFS and me frequently :-(". Willy Tarreau took a more critical stance, calling into question Roman's motives. He noted that he had been impressed by Roman's original review of the scheduler, but disappointed as the discussion seemed to degenerate, "it's the way you're trying to prove Ingo is a bastard and that you're a victim. But if we just re-read a few pick-ups of your mails since Aug 1st, its getting pretty obvious that you completely made up this situation." Kyle Moffett added, "I get the impression that Ingo re-implemented some ideas that you had because you refused to do so in a way that was acceptable for the upstream kernel. How exactly is this a bad thing?"
Lars Ellenberg started an effort to get DRBD, the Distributed Replicated Block Device merged into the Linux kernel. When asked for clarification as to what it was, Lars explained, "think of it as RAID1 over TCP. Typically you have one Node in Primary, the other as Secondary, replication target only. But you can also have both Active, for use with a cluster file system." Earlier in the thread he described it as "a stacked block device driver".
Much of the initial review focused on the need to comply with kernel coding style guidelines. Kyle Moffett offered a much lengthier review, noting at one point in the code, "how about fixing this to actually use proper workqueues or something instead of this open-coded mess?" Lars replied, "unlikely to happen 'right now'. But it is on our todo list..." Jens Axboe added, "but stuff like that is definitely a merge show stopper, jfyi".