Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: killing processes
Message-ID: <11372@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 6 May 88 04:30:13 GMT
References: <13282@brl-adm.ARPA>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 14

In article <13282@brl-adm.ARPA> rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim) writes:
>I believe that killing a process merely sets a bit in its signal mask, which
>is not looked at until the affected process is rescheduled.

It does a bit more.  If the affected process is sleeping interruptably,
it is made runnable and has its priority raised to PUSER if it is now
lower.  If it is actively running, its killing itself arranges for an
`AST' (no not the Minix AST :-) ) so that it will be sure to see the
signal.

In other words, the affected process is arranged to be run soon, so that
the signal will happen.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris