Linked by diegocg on Wed 5th Jan 2011 14:48 UTC
Permalink for comment 456016
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-14
I thought they had removed this a while ago. What actually happened is that they gradually lessened the impact of The Big Kernel lock, allowing more and more of the kernel to be run in parallel. The only think it controls in modern 2.6 kernels are a hand full of drivers and obscure file systems. They fully removed the Big Kernel lock and replaced it with mutexes. So these parts that were not able to be run in parallel, are still not able to run in parallel, but one obscure driver shouldn't block a different obscure driver anymore. For what that's worth.
Still a pretty cool benchmark for the kernel. Oh, I remember the taunts of those who criticised the linux 2.0 kernel for its SMP. Nice to lay those to rest.