Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:31:16 +0200 From: Oliver Herold <oliver@akephalos.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questions on the scheduler Message-ID: <20070929163116.GA1748@olymp.home> In-Reply-To: <46FE790A.1000101@FreeBSD.org> References: <80f4f2b20709240723m121aad88ofaf728f384dd6c20@mail.gmail.com> <20070924184415.7bffd7d2@gumby.homeunix.com.> <46FE790A.1000101@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Are there any numbers or technical papers? Just out of curiosity. Cheers, Oliver On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 06:10:50PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote: > RW wrote: > >> The FreeBSD response was to make the kernel more SMP friendly with >> finer-grained locking, and to bring-in the ULE scheduler. Dragonfly BSD >> was a fork off 4.x by people who thought a more radical kernel rewrite >> was needed. Their kernel avoids a lot of the locking problems by using >> message queues. > > Just to clarify, that was the theory and intention behind Dragonfly, but in > practise they have yet to achieve it after 4 years and any benefits of > their ideas remain unproven. Basically they have achieved no performance > gains on SMP and have effectively abandoned working on it. > > Kris > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Why did the Lord give us so much quickness of movement unless it was to avoid responsibility with?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070929163116.GA1748>