Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

capability of reincarnation server.

26 views
Skip to first unread message

sinu.na...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2006, 5:20:47 AM10/23/06
to
Hi,

yesterday I killed my "fs" process which is responsible for the
filesystem component of minix. I was thinking it will be again
restarted by Reincarnation Server. But surprisingly I got an error
saying that execv failed and /sbin/fs not found !!

once fs is stopped, how we can proceed to fetch a file from file system
??
Is this the reason I got the error ?

If so what is the scope of Reincarnation Server ?

Thanks
Srinu

sancho1980

unread,
Oct 25, 2006, 1:50:03 PM10/25/06
to
Hi,
I was just rereading the chapter on processes in the minix book and
when reading one line, I was reminded of your post:
The reincarnation server is made the parent of all processes of all
boot image processes started AFTER the process manager and the file
system...
sounds very much like the reason for your problem...

Segin

unread,
Oct 31, 2006, 5:22:39 PM10/31/06
to
Once you kill 'fs', the entire scope of files disappears, that is, Minix
3 no longer "knows" what a file is (and with that, the entire scope of
and concept of a "file" is lost), and since 'pm' (which is where the
call to restart a server [being that it's just starting a process like
anything else] ultimately goes) only knows of files as viable sources
for images upon which to create new processes from, killing 'fs' kills
your entire system, because 'pm' can no longer acquire a new image in
which to create a new process from.

Also, killing 'pm' kills your system because Minix 3 no longer "knows"
what a process is, and is thus unable to use 'rs' (nor can it give CPU
time to any processes, since there is no longer a such thing as a
"process", in a sense). Killing 'pm' subsequently kills all processes in
both the sense of parent-child process semantics of traditional UNIX,
and also in the sense that there is nothing to manage their execution
contexts, or to give processes execution contexts in the first place.

Yes, user-mode processes are managed and timesliced by... a user-mode
process. In one sense, this is extremely idiosyncratic, but in another,
it makes perfect sense.

Hope that helps.

If I got ANY of this wrong, please correct it. Remember, to err is to be
human...

signature.asc
0 new messages