Suspending/resuming processes

Tom Phoenix rootbeer at redcat.com
Thu Dec 20 18:49:21 UTC 2007


On 12/20/07, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is essentially useful when you need to guarantee that process
> will stay suspended even if it's currently suspended waiting for
> semaphore signal.

Do you mean to say that your processes resume running before their
semaphores are signaled?

If that's not it, what problem are you really trying to fix here? If
you want to keep a process that's waiting for a signal from resuming
execution when that signal is sent, you're interfering with signal
handling, aren't you? That could cause serious troubles in the long
run, and the long run might only be a few seconds.

Most of the time, most users want most processes to run at full speed.
It sounds like you're trying to change that, possibly idling the CPU;
why?

Maybe you simply want to do some operation in a high-priority process,
so as to keep lower-priority processes from interrupting key parts?

Cheers!

--Tom Phoenix



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list