Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:26:22 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Josh Paetzel <friar_josh@webwarrior.net> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, Andrew <andrew@ugh.net.au>, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>, Volker Stolz <stolz@hyperion.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>, Ian <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: idprio Message-ID: <3CA77EFE.2C00A81F@mindspring.com> References: <3CA0D3FE.8113515C@mindspring.com> <20020327092520.V24232-100000@starbug.ugh.net.au> <20020326223103.GC93885@elvis.mu.org> <3CA156F5.79580CE3@mindspring.com> <20020331134608.A286@twincat.vladsempire.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Josh Paetzel wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 09:21:57PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > But if system calls aren't preempted under what circumstances can a > > > > process hold a vnode lock and then be usurped for processor? > > > > > > While sleeping for IO. > > > > Ideal systems release and reacquire locks when they are going > > to suspend for a long time (Djikstra's "Banker's Algorithm"). > > Of course, the downside of this is that a low priority process that > needs a lot of resources may never be able get all of the resources > that it needs. :) That's a feature, not a bug. -- Terry 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?3CA77EFE.2C00A81F>