Assuming "the DragonflyBSD approach" is the same as when it forked 20 years ago: FreeBSD's approach was definitely the right one, for two reasons.
First, adding locking is fundamentally easier to get right than rewriting everything into a message-passing model. It took ~5 years to get SMP right in FreeBSD (from when 4.0 was released to when 6.0 was released) but it would have taken double that to get things equally stable and performant with the more intrusive redesign Matt wanted to go with.
Second, pretty much everyone else went with the same locking approach in the end -- which has resulted in CPUs being optimized for that. Lock latencies dropped dramatically with microarchitectural changes between ~2005 and ~2015.
As a theoretical concept, I love the idea behind Dragonfly, but it simply wasn't practical in the real world.
First, adding locking is fundamentally easier to get right than rewriting everything into a message-passing model. It took ~5 years to get SMP right in FreeBSD (from when 4.0 was released to when 6.0 was released) but it would have taken double that to get things equally stable and performant with the more intrusive redesign Matt wanted to go with.
Second, pretty much everyone else went with the same locking approach in the end -- which has resulted in CPUs being optimized for that. Lock latencies dropped dramatically with microarchitectural changes between ~2005 and ~2015.
As a theoretical concept, I love the idea behind Dragonfly, but it simply wasn't practical in the real world.