On 5-Feb-08, at 9:10 AM, Joshua Gargus wrote:

>
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Joshua Gargus wrote:
>>
>> I'm a little uncomfortable with the notion of not giving processes  
>> the priority explicitly requested by the programmer.
>
> I obviously didn't read Andreas's proposal closely enough.  With  
> more than a glance, it is clear that a lower-priority helper process  
> is used only for a moment to start up the real process at the  
> priority requested by the user.

Dang! You're right! Reminder to self - avoid commenting after a quick  
look at densely written code.

I agree that there is surely still a moderate likelihood problem here  
in that the helper process, being a lower priority, is not guaranteed  
to run anytime soon. If there are several processes at the current  
priority then they *all* have to get suspended before the helper can  
run and complete the fork. Your suggestion might solve that. I think.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
To iterate is human; to recurse, divine.