lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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
processes.

--
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.072 / U:8.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site