Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 23:00:42 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net> Cc: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com>, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, bde@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/13644 Message-ID: <200001240600.XAA01269@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:47:20 EST." <200001240547.AAA46261@rtfm.newton> References: <200001240547.AAA46261@rtfm.newton>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: This is what I asked for, when I asked for "other specification". Could : you provide the chapter/verse number of where POSIX spec contradicts the : man pages? It will help me make my case on the TCL forum, since the TCL : developers remain under the mistaken assumption, that select() may : return earlier, but never later than specified. That's trivially easy to show. Given process X with a priority N + 1 that is doing while (1) ; while process Y with a priority of N is doing the select. The kernel won't prempt X until the time slice is done, which can be a long time. If the select'd process is swapped out, then it could take a very very long time to swap back in. Somewhere in the archives have a pointer to the unified unix spec for select. Might want to look for it. A useful regular expression might be http://www.*/select.*. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001240600.XAA01269>