I wish the author explored CFS first, because not only is it simpler to understand, it's also the scheduler that the kernel ran for decades before switching to EEVDF.
Exploring CFS would also naturally lead to exploring its limitations (like why its bad for desktop interactivity), and so EEVDF can be organically introduced into the picture and we'd understand and appreciate it better.
I'm not just triggered by the wording, I generally just find it hard to read. That familiar feeling of having read multiple paragraphs where nothing of substance was said, and you realize the text was either heavily edited or generated.
I'd love to read an article about the topic, but can't recommend this one if you expect high informational quality.
It is most certainly written with AI. Where are the references?
The only thing you really need to rely on at this point is, if someone who has actually contributed to the Linux kernel scheduler can verify all of this.
The references are scattered throughout the article.
The color scheme makes it a lot harder to catch that they are there. The links don't look like links (don't do that OP).
But once you realize that, you can see that there are a bunch of references back to the linux source throughout the article.
That said, that color scheme isn't always a clickable link. I gotta say, the author needs to be a lot better about consistency. They use blue links, grey text that's actually a link, and the same grey text that isn't a link.
Discovering what is clickable and what's not is a mess. This should be a lot clearer. Ideally everything would be a blue link like in the first paragraph.
Article does seem quite interesting at a first glance, but I can't say I'm a fan of these GenAI headers at all.
In his About Me
> But now, thanks to AI, I can speed up the process significantly. AI helps me research faster, draft clearer explanations, and refine my writing—allowing me to finally share this knowledge the way I’ve always envisioned.
So I think he's writting articles himself and then running them through LLM to proofread and fix style, and so on.
I wish the author explored CFS first, because not only is it simpler to understand, it's also the scheduler that the kernel ran for decades before switching to EEVDF.
Exploring CFS would also naturally lead to exploring its limitations (like why its bad for desktop interactivity), and so EEVDF can be organically introduced into the picture and we'd understand and appreciate it better.
I'm too triggered by wording that signals it's written or at least modified by an LLM these days
I'm not just triggered by the wording, I generally just find it hard to read. That familiar feeling of having read multiple paragraphs where nothing of substance was said, and you realize the text was either heavily edited or generated.
I'd love to read an article about the topic, but can't recommend this one if you expect high informational quality.
It is most certainly written with AI. Where are the references?
The only thing you really need to rely on at this point is, if someone who has actually contributed to the Linux kernel scheduler can verify all of this.
If not, then you can't trust that text.
> Where are the references?
The references are scattered throughout the article.
The color scheme makes it a lot harder to catch that they are there. The links don't look like links (don't do that OP).
But once you realize that, you can see that there are a bunch of references back to the linux source throughout the article.
That said, that color scheme isn't always a clickable link. I gotta say, the author needs to be a lot better about consistency. They use blue links, grey text that's actually a link, and the same grey text that isn't a link.
Discovering what is clickable and what's not is a mess. This should be a lot clearer. Ideally everything would be a blue link like in the first paragraph.
In their first article of the series:
>I’m not a kernel expert—I’m learning out loud. The goal here isn’t a deep [...]
So I think it's safe to say they didn't contributed to the Linux kernel.
Article does seem quite interesting at a first glance, but I can't say I'm a fan of these GenAI headers at all.
In his About Me
> But now, thanks to AI, I can speed up the process significantly. AI helps me research faster, draft clearer explanations, and refine my writing—allowing me to finally share this knowledge the way I’ve always envisioned.
So I think he's writting articles himself and then running them through LLM to proofread and fix style, and so on.