Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:30:49 -0600 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Andrew <andrew@ugh.net.au> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Volker Stolz <stolz@hyperion.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>, Ian <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: idprio Message-ID: <20020326223049.GC5747@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20020327092520.V24232-100000@starbug.ugh.net.au> References: <3CA0D3FE.8113515C@mindspring.com> <20020327092520.V24232-100000@starbug.ugh.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Mar 27), Andrew said: > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > Sure it can, if the idprio process has locked a vnode trying to update Careful; I wrote the above line, not Terry. > But if system calls aren't preempted under what circumstances can a > process hold a vnode lock and then be usurped for processor? System calls aren't preempted, but if while processing a syscall, the kernel decides to tsleep(), say because of disk I/O (a very common thing when dealing with vnodes :), then another process is free to start running. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020326223049.GC5747>