On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 14:56 +0000, is...@zahav.net.il wrote: > On Sun, 08 May 2011 17:28:07 +0300 > Gilboa Davara <gilb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 07:31 +0000, is...@zahav.net.il wrote: > > > > > > at this point Linux (and BSD) still aren't doing SMP > > > as well as other OS > > > > Care to elaborate? > > I think it's well-known Solaris exploits multicore better than Linux or > BSD.
I have very little experience in BSD OS', so I can't really comment on that. However, in my own experience, the SMP performance of Linux vs. Solaris -greatly- depends on workload, with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. > I don't track Linux very much but I can see from conky on my boxes Linux > just doesn't do that well. And race conditions are unfortunately an > ongoing problem in many apps. I don't think race condition means what you think it means... You're most likely mixing race condition and resource / lock contention. More-ever, you're mixing SMP kernel issues (Such as the soon-to-be-officially-dead BKL [big kernel lock] and SMP scheduler issues) and application design issues. (Read: Application that are not design with big/huge-SMP in mind) > > I work on a different platform where multithreading and multiprocessing > were a very early part of the design and I have seen a big difference in > performance and lack of race conditions in that environment because it was > based on a native multithreading model whereas UNIX was based on process > forking and threading came much later and you could argue was not exactly > implemented seamlessly. It's not an apples and apples comparison but the > difference in software issues on those systems is night and day. As far as I > can see those problems still haven't been resolved at the design or > implementation levels. A specific example will go a long way to explain your POV. - Gilboa _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
