Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:35:58 -0500 | From | Anthony DiSante <> | Subject | Re: uninterruptible sleep lockups |
| |
Denis Vlasenko wrote: >>>The infrastructure for that does not exist, so instead, the "killed" >>>process remains. Not all of it, but at least the memory pinned down by >>>the io request. This overhead is typically small, and the overehad of >>>adding forced io abort to every driver might >>>be larger than a handful of stuck processes. It looks ugly, but perhaps >>>a ps flag that hides the ugly processes is enough. >> >>I don't care about any overhead associated with stuck processes, nor do I >>care that they look ugly in the ps output. What I care about is the fact >>that at least once a week on multiple systems with different hardware, some >>HW-related driver/process gets stuck, then immediately cascades its >>stuckness up to udevd or hald, and then I can't use any of my hardware >>anymore until I reboot. > > > This was discussed to death before. There will never be a "D-state" killer. Period. > > If you want to get rid of your stuck processes, you need to fix the bug > or at least let lkml people know about it (this was already explained to you!).
I didn't mention any of that here; my reply was simply to correct Helge's misunderstanding about why I dislike stuck processes. Regardless of whether the bugs get fixed or the kernel finds a way to work around them, my dislike has nothing to do with the overhead or "ugliness" of stuck processes; I dislike them because they render my system useless for 75% of the things I use it for.
-Anthony DiSante http://nodivisions.com/ - 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/
| |