clipka wrote:
> Warp 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.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

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

clipka wrote:
> 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.

Sure. I was just pointing out that "livelock" (or any other indefinite 
holding of a lock while not blocked) is not included in the definition of 
"deadlock". :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message