3 ms·
Technically DragonFlyBSD was the evolution of a non-SMP kernel, though indeed they've reorganized enough that it more than qualifies as "engineered for SMP." I
by waddlesplash 7y ago
Technically DragonFlyBSD was the evolution of a non-SMP kernel, though indeed they've reorganized enough that it more than qualifies as "engineered for SMP."
I think the Haiku kernel was also? At any rate it certainly is now, in much the way DragonFlyBSD's was if nothing else.
- nickpsecurity 7y agoYou're starting to make me think most of what I read about BeOS isn't true. One of those things was that it was designed for strong, concurrency support. They bragged about it in the demo showing how it didn't degrade under massive load. Another paper mentioned the "benaphores" that improved on semaphores a bit. So, was it not designed for concurrency and they just somehow fixed a lot of it later? That retrofits usually don't work is why I believed claims that concurrency was a design goal.
- waddlesplash 7y agoConcurrency and SMP are two very different things. One can have a kernel that handles concurrency better than anything else alive but it does not have any support for SMP. But ... I didn't say anything about BeOS in my comment? I was talking about Haiku, which has very different origins than BeOS, especially on the kernel front where the internal architecture was and is pretty different from the Be kernel. I actually don't know how much the Be kernel was designed for SMP from the first days; I think it was but I'm not sure. At any rate it definitely did have better concurrency for desktop usage than anything else at the time, I believe.
- nickpsecurity 7y agoMy bad. I read too quickly thinking you're response was about BeOS. Thanks for the correction.