[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [bug report] NFS and uninterruptable wait states
David Woodhouse wrote:
> said:
> > NFS does this (wait in D state) by default in order to prevent naive
> > applications from getting timeout errors that they're not equipped to
> > handle--the idea being that, if an NFS server goes down, programs
> > using it will simply freeze and recover once it returns, rather than
> > getting a timeout error and possibly becoming confused.
> Timeouts are a completely separate issue, surely? Applications ought to be
> able to deal with getting a _signal_ during a system call, whatever happens.
> IMO, sleeping in state TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE in any situation where you can't
> prove that the wakeup _will_ happen and will happen _soon_ should be
> considered a bug - it's almost always just because someone hasn't bothered
> to implement the cleanup code required for dealing with being interrupted.
> /me tries to work out why anyone would ever want filesystem accesses to be
> uninterruptible.
Because historically the 'D' meant "wait on _D_isk" 8-)
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 13:17    [W:0.107 / U:2.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site