|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |