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.
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.
> 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.