To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Joe Peterson <joe@skyrush.com>, Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de>,
       =?utf-8?B?VMO2csO2aw==?= Edwin <edwintorok@gmail.com>,
       Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ctrl+C doesn't interrupt process waiting for I/O
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
References: <48661488.10304@gmail.com> <87fxqurqpz.fsf@denkblock.local>
	<486E83C3.1040509@skyrush.com>
	<20080704212335.4ffc8230@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:21:57 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20080704212335.4ffc8230@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (Alan Cox's message of "Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:23:35 +0100")
Message-ID: <871w29s5u2.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 978
Lines: 24

Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

>> disk activity process over each time it completed), it always broke out
>> after one ^C - one time took an extra second or two.  Note that I did
>> not run latencytop (did not have it compiled in my kernel) - if that is
>> required for the test, let me know, but I assume it is just for
>> gathering info when the issue occurs.
>
> I really don't think this is tty related looking at the code involved and
> also the lack of actual measurements presented. More likely scheduler and
> VM related changes.

Why should the scheduler or VM behave differently for Ctrl-Z+kill 
versus Ctrl-C?

Doesn't make sense to me. And yes I see this here regularly and it started
at some point.

-Andi
--
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/