[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] lazy umount (1/4)
Date said:
> >>1) Be able kill -9 processes from "D" state.

> Please note that there is a reason why the "D" state exists, and it is
> because there are certain times when interrupting a process can have
> significant consequences on the integrity of the entire filesystem (or
> other global resource) and must not be allowed for consistency. As
> it happens, most of the conditions which cause processes to get
> "stuck" in disk-wait state (usually because of hardware issues)
> happen to be exactly the places where it's most difficult to work
> around this (at least for physically-backed filesystems, less so for
> NFS et al)

What you say is true - implementing proper cleanup code for the case where
an operation is interrupted is complex and not always reasonably possible.

But that's an exceedingly poor excuse for not bothering to do so, in many


Filesystems are hard. Let's go shopping.

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 13:03    [W:0.033 / U:0.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site