Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 03 Sep 2001 19:09:50 +0200 | From | Peter Wächtler <> | Subject | Re: [bug report] NFS and uninterruptable wait states |
| |
David Woodhouse wrote: > > doug@wireboard.com 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 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/
| |