Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754138AbXLCKiu (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 05:38:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752090AbXLCKim (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 05:38:42 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:36784 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752061AbXLCKim (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 05:38:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:38:15 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andi Kleen Cc: Radoslaw Szkodzinski , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [feature] automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Message-ID: <20071203103815.GA2707@elte.hu> References: <20071202114152.3bf4332d@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20071202200953.GA23994@one.firstfloor.org> <20071202202602.GA16480@elte.hu> <20071202204725.GA25891@one.firstfloor.org> <20071202144331.6abf1289@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20071203000741.GB26636@one.firstfloor.org> <20071202165913.3eaebee6@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20071203095501.GB28560@one.firstfloor.org> <20071203111520.33ed2139@astralstorm.puszkin.org> <20071203102715.GC28560@one.firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071203102715.GC28560@one.firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1191 Lines: 29 * Andi Kleen 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 -- 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/