Re: uninterruptible sleep lockups

[Anthony DiSante]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/