Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Task KILL for Amiga
Message-ID: <5748@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jan 89 00:49:23 GMT
References: <3716@crash.cts.com> <10908@s.ms.uky.edu> <5713@cbmvax.UUCP> <10926@s.ms.uky.edu>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 25

In article <10926@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>Why? Seems to me that resource allocation is an infrequently done thing.
>It also seems to me that resources could be tracked with bitmaps. Where
>is the serious speed/memory degradation?
>
>Assuming I'm right, what's the REAL reason resources aren't tracked?

	Well, that's a big assumption to make.  :-)

	Here are some of the reasons you're wrong:  resources get passed
from one process/task to another, frequently.  Resources are sometimes passed
permanently, sometimes temporarily.  AllocMem/FreeMem are often done for
small chunks, and very often.  There are MANY resources, and orderings in which
they must be released.  The system wasn't designed for it originally (or
rather the never-completed original OS did some of it (though not all).  Users
allocate system structures and pass them to the system, instead of vice-versa.
We have very limited programmer resources.  Improperly written programs will
leave the system potentially munged anyways, so cleaning up after them is
very risky, at best (witness GOMF - sometimes saves you, but often doesn't, or
you die a short time later).

	I could go on, but you get the idea.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup