[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: is killing zombies possible w/o a reboot?
    On Thursday 04 November 2004 01:33, Russell Miller wrote:
    > On Wednesday 03 November 2004 17:03, Doug McNaught wrote:
    > > It was already mentioned in this thread that the bookkeeping required
    > > to clean up properly from such an abort would add a lot of overhead
    > > and slow down the normal, non-buggy case.
    > >
    > I am going to continue pursuing this at the risk of making a bigger fool of
    > myself than I already am, but I want to make sure that I understand the
    > issues - and I did read the message you are referring to.
    > I think what you are saying is that there is kind of a race condition here.
    > When something is on the wait queue, it has to be followed through to
    > completion. An interrupt could be received at any time, and if it's taken
    > off of the wait queue prematurely, it'll crash the kernel, because the
    > interrupt has no way of telling that.

    The problem is in locking. You must not kill process while it is
    in uninterruptible state because it is uninterruptible
    for a reason - has taken semaphore, or get_cpu(), etc.
    You do want it to do put_cpu(), right?

    Processes must never get stuck in D, it's a kernel bug.

    Find out how did process ended up in D state forever,
    and fix it - that's what I'm trying to do
    in these cases.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.031 / U:13.160 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site