#fork and deterministic resumption of the resulting process
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Feb 5 19:35:05 UTC 2008
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> 2) especially, the fix is not 100% safe unless I'm mistaken.
>> What do you mean by "100% safe"? It is 100% deterministic (which is
>> what I care about); I'm not sure what you mean when you use the term
>> "safe" here.
> It is not.
Err, it is not what? Deterministic? Or safe? The point about it being
deterministic did not relate to when exactly the process would resume
(no real-time guarantee) but rather that it would resume
deterministically in relation to its parent process (in this case, only
after the parent process got suspended).
> Whether the low-priority process actually starts depends on
> external factors. If you have two priority-40 processes, they might
> prevent the priority-39 process to start and resume the forked process.
Correct. And it is an interesting question to discuss how the system
*should* behave if it's exceeding its capabilities (i.e., running at
100% CPU). But I'll leave that discussion for a different day.
More information about the Squeak-dev