lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 3 Dec 2007 11:38:15 +0100
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [feature] automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks
* Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-03 11:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2008