Re: Reliability of RPC services

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 21:42 +0200, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> > We need to avoid words like "blocked" in this discussion, because that
> > is what is causing the confusion.
> 
> you used it (``1. Incoming messages on any valid, unblocked FCRB.''), i
> just quoted you.

Yes. Excuse me. I should have written "FCRB marked 'available'"

> 
> > First, let me repeat the steps for
> > reference:
> > 
> >>    1. C has invoked some FCRB->M, passing some RFCRB->C
> >>     2. C yields the CPU
> >>     3. M has been activated by arrival of C's message
> >>     4. M has invoked some FCRB->S, passing some RCFRB->M
> >>     5. M yields the CPU
> >>     6. S has been activated by arrival of M's message
> >>     ?. S *may* eventually invoke RFCRB->M, but cannot be
> >>        sure. This is the ``problem.''
> > 
> > To answer your question, it isn't important whether FCRB->M is available
> > after step 5. This depends on whether M wishes to be multi-threaded.
> 
> multithreaded in what sense? the continuation style of programming?

In any sense that the application wishes. In a scheduler activation
system, the difference between continuations and activations is a matter
of implementation choice.


shap