*BSD News Article 27719


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!Germany.EU.net!news
From: bs@Germany.EU.net (Bernard Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Subject: Re: Notes on the *new* FreeBSD V1.1 VM system
Date: 25 Feb 1994 13:22:35 +0100
Organization: EUnet Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany
Lines: 20
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2kkqib$h2h@Germany.EU.net>
References: <BcxpGux.dysonj@delphi.com> <2ke3ss$l0d@u.cc.utah.edu> <Ja4p+zR.dysonj@delphi.com> <2kfcur$dd1@germany.eu.net> <2kgdcd$mls@usenet.pa.dec.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: qwerty.germany.eu.net


In article <2kgdcd$mls@usenet.pa.dec.com>, paik@mlo.dec.com (Samuel S. Paik) writes:
|> Please go read the deadlock literature.  There are basically four "solution
|> strategies" to deadlock: prevention by allowing resources to be allocated
|> only in certain patterns; avoidance by refusing to allocate resources when
|> you may end up with a deadlock; detection when it occurs and killing to
|> break the deadlock; and stick head in the mud (unix).  

Since you have no a-prioro knowledge of a processes behaviour wrt memory
consumtion, the first two solutions are unviable.

So we end up discussing the latter two, and (I think) we agree that the
stick-head-in-the-mud behaviour is not a real solution.

Since the killing solution may be regarded as very unfriendly, I was merely
suggesting a possible (?) way to allow well-behaved processes to tell the
system how much a user would frown upon the system killing that particular
process.

Bernard