Darren New schrieb:

>>>   I suppose that would work, at least assuming that a process never 
>>> releasing
>>> a resource is not included in the definition of "deadlock".
>>
>> If you have a process that never releases a resource, then you're 
>> somewhat screwed anyway...
> 
> Not really. It could be livelock, with all else outside of the resource 
> locking/reservation/management subsystem being correct.

Yes. In this case it's the livelock that screws you. But screwed you are.

However you resolve such a situation, you want /some/ mechanism to make 
sure that processes don't run endless in the first place, not to mention 
doing so with resources locked (unless of course it's a daemon process 
and the only one to use the resource anyway). And if the only mechanism 
in place is a human brain & fingers typing "kill -9 <PID>", you'll still 
want it at any rate.

Post a reply to this message