Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> Not completely deterministic.  The behavior may change depending on 
> whether there are other processes or not, that run at the active process 
> priority.

It is entirely deterministic in such that the forked process will not be 
resumed until the parent process is suspended. No amount of other 
processes change that; even if they take 100% CPU it won't change the 
fact that the process will not be resumed before its parent is suspended.

> What if you instead bumped a little the priority of the active process 
> until the forked process started running?

And how does the parent process know that the forked process is running?

Cheers,
   - Andreas