|
 |
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:45:16 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:20:54 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > That's not how pre-emptive multitasking works.
>
>> Yes, I am aware of how pre-emptive vs. non-preemptive multitasking
>> works.
>
> In fact, even in a cooperative multitasking system a process taking
> 100% of CPU time doesn't necessarily mean the system is locked into that
> single process. The process may still be nicely sharing time, but if
> it's the only CPU-intensive process running, it may be getting all of
> the available CPU time.
Yep, absolutely - utilization figures are typically trended, and there
usually is more than one process in the "task queue", even when something
tries to take over the system entirely. Interrupts and whatnot being in
place means there's always something else that can take control unless
the program has the ability (at the kernel level) to truly take
everything over.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
