Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!oliveb!amiga!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Virtual Memory
Message-ID: <6969@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 24 May 89 18:34:34 GMT
References: <8905222150.AA05890@jade.berkeley.edu> <10949@behemoth.phx.mcd.mot.com>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 13

In article <10949@behemoth.phx.mcd.mot.com> mph@behemoth.UUCP (Mark Huth) writes:
>Well, I'm not Dave, but I'll jump in here.  Forbid in not too bad - just eats
>processor doing nothing while the page swap occurs.  That is, we do not care why
>the task forbids, we simply comply by not scheduling another context.  If a
>page fault occurs, swap a page.  If it was the wrong page, then you'll get
>another page fault, so you swap that one in.

	Sorry, but every disk driver I've seen uses tasks, and therefore 
you MUST break the forbid in order to page, which means a page fault while
forbidden is disaster.

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