[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] lazy umount (1/4)
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:

> > Well, you cannot tell your local power plant "you must not fail this
> > very moment" either. Of course, data will be lost when a process is
> > killed from "D" state, but if the admin can tell the data will be lost
> > either way, ...
> Gaack... Just how do you kill a process that holds a bunch of semaphores
> and got blocked on attempt to take one more? It's not about lost data,
> it's about completely screwed kernel.

Well, if that process holds processes and blocks getting one more,
something is wrong with the process and it's prone to deadlocks. Even if
kill -9 just means "fail this all further syscalls instantly" in such
cases, that'd be fine. Something like an "BEING KILLED" state for

Matthias Andree

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
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:0.035 / U:1.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site