lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [feature] automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks

* Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:

> > Kernel waiting 2 minutes on TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE is certainly broken.
>
> What should it do when the NFS server doesn't answer anymore or when
> the network to the SAN RAID array located a few hundred KM away
> develops some hickup? [...]

maybe: if the user does a Ctrl-C (or a kill -9), the kernel should try
to honor it, instead of staying there stuck for a very long time
(possibly forever)?

I think you are somehow confusing two issues: this patch in no way
declares that "long waits are bad" - if the user _choses_ to wait for
the NFS server (after phoning IT quickly or whatever), he can wait an
hour. This patch only declares that "long waits _that the user has no
way to stop_ are quite likely bad".

Do you see the important distinction between the two cases? Please
reconsider your position (or re-state it differently), it just makes no
rational sense to me so far.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-03 11:41    [W:0.112 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site