Talk:Process (computing)

alt definition
For your merging pleasure, the following alternative definition used to be found at process:


 * In computing, a process is a running instance of a program, including all variables and other states. A multitasking operating system switches between processes to give the appearance of simultaneous execution, though in fact only one process can be executing at once per CPU core.

--Ryguasu 12:26 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)


 * I replaced the definition with the one above. Encyclopedia shouldn't be "roughly speaking" when a definition is expected [[Image:helix84.jpg|33px]] helix84 04:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Process
Hi, just a quick note; I think this definition should be a little broader. A process is not just a computer related thing. Processes are used in business and industry (and elswhere I am sure) to achieve a desired result.

In fact it could probably be best described as "a sequence of activities intended to achieve a desired result or objective". I have a drawing somewhere that describes it admirably which I could upload as a .jpg or .gif but am not quite sure how for the moment. More soon Rossfi 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See the article for Process and the Process (disambiguation) page. &mdash; Loadmaster 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is wrong
The article says: "However, if the process attempts to access code or data on disk, then it will be suspended while that content is moved into physical memory through a process known as paging."


 * If the process attemps to access code or data on disk... it will be blocked. Sometime later it MAY be suspended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.115.227.20 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't think it's wrong. There is no reason that CPU time goes to a process that is currently waiting for som really slow device to finish. Remember that in context of a processor, a hard-drive or similar is extremely slow. Therefore the process is suspended (set to sleep - or whatever), for a very short while (nano- or milliseconds) so other processes can be scheduled. --MGarde (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Process table
Process table redirects here. What's inside a process table? --Abdull 10:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets Not Start Terminological Wars!
One thing you need to remember is that computer programming (I still will not accept it as a science and only a borderline engineering discipline at that), like most human endeavors just "grewed." In that process, a dozen different names came to be used for the same or similar thing, or some variant thereof. I was the Chief Engineer for an OS developed for NASA (a much reduced, but real-time version of IBM's MVOS) in the late '80s, and the very first thing I had done (and it took almost 6 months of precious time) was to develop standards of terminology and naming that included a glossary of all of the terms likely to be in use on that project.

From where I sit, a 'blocked' or 'suspended' state are one and the same. I suspect that you perceive some difference or you would not have raised the issue. As I see it, there are 4 basic states: pending, actively executing, waiting execution, and suspended (blocked!?!). Only the middle two states form the queue of tasks either executing or immediately available for execution (all resources available). That's even in an OS using preemptive priority, where there may be several such queues, depending on priority. Normxxx (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

KUDOS to the Author of "Process management in multitasking operating systems"
It could use some editing for style and clarity, but it lays out in a most succinct way, a very difficult topic, entrammeled by history and other baggage.Normxxx (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction getting too big
The introduction is getting a bit out of hand. It does have a lot of important information but it ends up being overwhelming to someone who just wants a brief overview. It should be a concise overview of the article. Some information that's in it right now is not really covered in the rest of the article and could probably be moved down. If I have time I will see if I can do something myself later on.--Sir Anon (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And it is still not precise enough. Using more than one physical processor on a computer, permits true simultaneous execution ... is leaving out the fact many modern procesors are multicore and therefore able to do true simultaneous execution even alone. -- Hkmaly (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?
How is the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_(computing)?diff=259431527 considered vandalism when it is a constrictive external link to a Process (Computing) related page from an external source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.91.4 (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Chicken or egg?
"Processes go through various process states which determine how the process is handled by the operating system kernel." I found this sentence very confusing. States determine handling or handling determines states? Need for multitasking and sequenciality of CPU's forced the queueing (forced keeping items of queue in memory) and pausing of running programs. Pausing forced keeping states like "paused" and "running" in memory ... I'm gonna edit it 86.61.232.26 (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Security
How is security enforced? What prohiobits a process from writing data out of it's own memory domain? Is every memory access analyzed? (I think it will be too much overhead.) I'm mainly curious of *nix like systems because they're said to have a well designed security system. --Zslevi (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification please "not known to any one process."
What does the following sentence mean? "Different processes may share the same set of instructions in memory (to save storage), but this is not known to any one process." Does it mean that a process is not aware that it is sharing instructions with other processes? Leboite (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and someone appears to have reformulated that, because I cannot find it in the article. JöG (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Job?
Job (software) redirects to this article. Is it synonymous to process in all contexts? Job seems to have a unique meaning, at least after reading job control. --Abdull (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In Unix, they are never synonymous, as far as I can tell. But like someone remarked above, the terminology varies a lot between cultures. It's easy to write a good article on e.g. Unix processes, but hard to write a good general article like this one. JöG (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, in fact I expanded Job stream and changed the Job (software) and a couple of wikilinks elsewhere to point there. Peter Flass (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

thanku — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.27.200 (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Task
It says, in the lede:

"Each CPU (core) executes a single task at a time.", where "task" is a wikilink. The article for "task" says that it is an ambiguous term, one of whose meanings is "process". So can we simply substitute "process", rather than introducing an ambiguous term?

MrDemeanour (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"Process(computing)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process(computing)&redirect=no Process(computing)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"Process(isd)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process(isd)&redirect=no Process(isd)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"Process (information system development)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_(information_system_development)&redirect=no Process (information system development)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"Process(OS)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process(OS)&redirect=no Process(OS)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)