This page of the Ars article on Tiger includes a statement about confirmed dual core, dual processor Macs. Anyone else read this? Maybe it has already been discounted, but I guarantee John Siracusa knows more about Apple's interior workings than I do. Hmm
"Matters get worse when you consider a multi-CPU system. More simultaneous threads vying for the same number of kernel locks means more contention. There are no Macs with more than two CPUs right now. But let's face it, a dual-core, dual-chip Mac is inevitable at this point. ("Confirmed!!!") Such a beast won't take too kindly to a split funnel kernel. What's an OS to do?"
...
With sexy dual-core CPUs on the way, the removal of the split funnel may seem like the most important kernel change in Tiger. But the introduction of stable kernel programming interfaces is the real hero here. Without KPIs, none of the radical kernel changes in Tiger would have been possible. The KPIs finally set Apple's kernel development team free to do all the things they've always wanted to do.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/4
"Matters get worse when you consider a multi-CPU system. More simultaneous threads vying for the same number of kernel locks means more contention. There are no Macs with more than two CPUs right now. But let's face it, a dual-core, dual-chip Mac is inevitable at this point. ("Confirmed!!!") Such a beast won't take too kindly to a split funnel kernel. What's an OS to do?"
...
With sexy dual-core CPUs on the way, the removal of the split funnel may seem like the most important kernel change in Tiger. But the introduction of stable kernel programming interfaces is the real hero here. Without KPIs, none of the radical kernel changes in Tiger would have been possible. The KPIs finally set Apple's kernel development team free to do all the things they've always wanted to do.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/4
