This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"Brain Fuck Scheduler"? That's weird, especially considering how it's not the most convoluted out there. Is there a story behind the name? --126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. I just had to look in the FAQ.
Why "Brain Fuck"?
Because it throws out everything about what we know is good about how to design a modern scheduler in scalability. Because it's so ridiculously simple. Because it performs so ridiculously well on what it's good at despite being that simple. Because it's designed in such a way that mainline would never be interested in adopting it, which is how I like it. Because it will make people sit up and take notice of where the problems are in the current design. Because it throws out the philosophy that one scheduler fits all and shows that you can do a -lot- better with a scheduler designed for a particular purpose. I don't want to use a steamroller to crack nuts. Because it actually means that more CPUs means better latencies. Because I must be fucked in the head to be working on this again. I'll think of some more becauses later.
This article talks about everything EXCEPT how the scheduling algorithm actually schedules.188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Good point. That's because there seem to be next to zero published references providing an analysis of the actual BFS' inner workings; in order to have a description of how it actually works, digging through its source code would be required. I could do that, but that would take quite a lot of time, and it would be questionnable whether the BFS' source code could serve as a reference for a description produced that way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)