Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!ginosko!usc!apple!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms
From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Resource tracking
Message-ID: <725@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Date: 27 Oct 89 02:46:34 GMT
References: <8910232238.AA18077@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith)
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Field Service Co, San Jose CA
Lines: 21

In article <8910232238.AA18077@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) writes:
>If one were to keep track of process resources, what would one be keeping
>track of, aside from memory, message ports, file locks, and, perhaps,
>semaphores?  I've not really given this much thought, but I would like to
>know what the scope of full resource tracking is.

Make sure the design is flexible enough to allow one process to create another
process and give resources to the second process.  We need a way to tell the
resource tracker things like: "This memory now belongs to that process, as
do these file locks, this viewport, etc."

Programs that come in two parts, like c:dmouse and l:dmouse-handler can cause
all sorts of headaches to simple-minded resource trackers.

Summary: It can be done, but not without changes to both the OS and to the
programs.
-- 
Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: JMS@F74.TYMNET.COM or jms@gemini.tymnet.com
McDonnell Douglas FSCO  | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms
PO Box 49019, MS-D21    | PDP-10 support: My car's license plate is "POPJ P,"
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | narrator.device: "I didn't say that, my Amiga did!"