On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:40:14PM +0100, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > Darac Marjal writes: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:40:36AM -0200, Hudson Flavio Meneses Lacerda > wrote: > > Sorry, but this paragraph needs a couple of "label" corrections > > > "Cooperative Multitasking". > > Sorry, the label here is "Preemptive" (*), according to your own > expaination :).
Ah, you're right. > > > One process will be given some time on a processor and then, after > > a period of time or when that process yields control of the > > processor > > Is not the process that yelds, it's the kernel that assigns the CPU to > another process, as you correctly explain below. I thought that both mechanisms were available? That is, a process could voluntarily say "I don't need the CPU at the moment"? Or is it simply the fact that the process ISN'T using the CPU that causes it to get pre-empted? > > > (for example, if the process is waiting for > > data to come from a disk, then there's nothing for the CPU to do), the > > kernel will suspend that process and pick another one. The choosing of > > when to switch processes and which processes to pick when several are > > wanting the CPU, is performed by the scheduler. > > In "coopeartive multitasking" a process helds the CPU control as long > as he wishes (Windows 3.11, old Mac OS, Java Green Threads). >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
