Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mtndew!friedl
From: friedl@mtndew.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Is System V.4 fork reliable?
Message-ID: <472@mtndew.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jul 90 02:44:25 GMT
References: <561@oglvee.UUCP> <480@amanue.UUCP> <13426@cbmvax.commodore.com> <18478@rpp386.cactus.org>
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Center
Lines: 23

In article <18478@rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> 
> It isn't that the kernel =can't= sleep, but rather that someone decided
> [ for some totally random reason, I suspect ... ] that the kernel
> =shouldn't= sleep.  The solution isn't to add some kludge on top of the
> system, but rather to put back the behavior that was always there -
> the kernel sleeps in fork if it requires additional memory.

I've been following this and am not so sure I agree with this line
of thinking.  What if I >want< fork to fail if it can't do it (because
I want to reschedule the process that wants to fork for a later time).
By allowing the calling program control right away, it can make its
own choice.  If you put this in the kernel then everybody does it the
same way: how long should it wait before giving up?  Wkat kind of backoff
should it use? 

     Steve

-- 
Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
+1 714 544 6561  / friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

"I'm a simple girl; I wear a cat on my head." - Laura Dykstra @ NCR Orlando