Re: [feature] automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Kernel waiting 2 minutes on TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE is certainly broken.
> 
> What should it do when the NFS server doesn't answer anymore or when 
> the network to the SAN RAID array located a few hundred KM away 
> develops some hickup?  [...]

maybe: if the user does a Ctrl-C (or a kill -9), the kernel should try 
to honor it, instead of staying there stuck for a very long time 
(possibly forever)?

I think you are somehow confusing two issues: this patch in no way 
declares that "long waits are bad" - if the user _choses_ to wait for 
the NFS server (after phoning IT quickly or whatever), he can wait an 
hour. This patch only declares that "long waits _that the user has no 
way to stop_ are quite likely bad".

Do you see the important distinction between the two cases? Please 
reconsider your position (or re-state it differently), it just makes no 
rational sense to me so far.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux