Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!oliveb!amiga!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS
Message-ID: <6796@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 9 May 89 03:12:27 GMT
References: <16952@usc.edu> <7988@killer.Dallas.TX.US> <10848@behemoth.phx.mcd.mot.com>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 16

In article <10848@behemoth.phx.mcd.mot.com> mph@behemoth.UUCP (Mark Huth) writes:
>In summary, virtural memory in say a month, protection in 6 months to
>a year, and anything more, well, why bother.  Note that protection
>will eliminate the source of many gurus, but may not allow the resource
>recovery that is needed to effectively kill an errant task.  That
>would require that the OS have the necessary tracking mechanisms built
>into it, and I'm not sure that AmigaDOS does enough in this area.

	One problem with VM: Forbid()/Permit() and Disable()/Enable().
If you allow another task to run when a Forbidden task takes a page fault,
then the Forbid() is broken.  This is compounded by the fact that many
(more likely all) HD's use tasks for their drivers, and thus the forbid
MUST be broken in order to page.  Disable is, of course, worse.

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