Interview géante des développeurs OpenBSD suite à la sortie de la version 3.6 : http://www.onlamp.com/lpt/a/5302
Le journaliste pose la question de savoir quelle technique a été choisie pour le support SMP et Niklas Hallqvist réponds la chose suivante :
FB: What techniques have you chosen?
Niklas Hallqvist: Biglock. That means that while a process is executing inside the kernel, no other process gets access to it; instead they will spin until the first process leaves it. This is a bit crude, since some applications won't benefit at all from this kind of multiprocessing. However, most do, especially if things are set up with multiprocessing in mind.
The reason we have chosen biglock is that it is really simple, and simplicity is a prime objective if security is considered. Fine-grained locking is much harder to do completely right, and things like starvation and deadlocks are much more common. We are just too conservative to risk this.
[^] # Re: et les autres OS ?
Posté par patrick_g (site web personnel) . En réponse à la dépêche La fin du verrou global dans le noyau Linux ?. Évalué à 5.
Le journaliste pose la question de savoir quelle technique a été choisie pour le support SMP et Niklas Hallqvist réponds la chose suivante :
FB: What techniques have you chosen?
Niklas Hallqvist: Biglock. That means that while a process is executing inside the kernel, no other process gets access to it; instead they will spin until the first process leaves it. This is a bit crude, since some applications won't benefit at all from this kind of multiprocessing. However, most do, especially if things are set up with multiprocessing in mind.
The reason we have chosen biglock is that it is really simple, and simplicity is a prime objective if security is considered. Fine-grained locking is much harder to do completely right, and things like starvation and deadlocks are much more common. We are just too conservative to risk this.