Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:56:46 -0700 From: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> To: Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> Cc: Morten Rodal <morten@rodal.no>, kpieckiel@smartrafficenter.org, Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>, Mario Pranjic <mario.pranjic@irb.hr>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP kernel: FreeBSD vs. Linux 2.4.x Message-ID: <20020811035646.GB589@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20020809203934.GA94313@electricjellyfish.net> References: <Pine.GSO.4.32.0208091409570.6242-100000@nippur.irb.hr> <20020809091008.A87124@unixdaemons.com> <20020809164411.GC78503@pacer.dmz.smartrafficenter.org> <20020809171743.GB290@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20020809203355.GE6050@slurp.rodal.no> <20020809203934.GA94313@electricjellyfish.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net>: > > How does this compare to the approach NetBSD is taking? The docs above > > helped, but I am still a bit puzzled. > > > > http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story_id=2969 > > NetBSD is following the approach set forth in the anderson paper, > while FreeBSD is trying some new ideas that should provide for better > performance, but are less well tested (i.e. nobody has implemented > them before). That's what I heard, although I still don't know how the approaches are different. I read the Anderson paper, but I can't seem to find any documentation about the FreeBSD approach. (Given the signal delivery problems we're currently having, I'd guess that Julian et al. are going through the same hell that the Solaris developers did when implementing threading.) Could you please ellaborate on the differences in the FreeBSD approach? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020811035646.GB589>