[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:0.049 / U:2.732 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site