On Wednesday 26 September 2007 21:57, Ric Wheeler wrote: > Bob Bell wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:43:49PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >> Here's the second version of TASK_KILLABLE. A few changes since > >> version 1: > > > > <snip> > > > >> I obviously haven't covered every place that can result in a process > >> sleeping uninterruptibly while attempting an operation. But sync_page > >> (patch 4/5) covers about 90% of the times I've attempted to kill cat, > >> and I hope that by providing the two examples, I can help other people > >> to fix the cases that they find interesting. > > > > I've been testing this patch on my systems. It's working for me when > > I read() a file. Asynchronous write()s seem okay, too. However, > > synchronous writes (caused by either calling fsync() or fcntl() to > > release a lock) prevent the process from being killed when the NFS > > server goes down. > > After hearing again last month about how few people actually read every > lkml thread, I wanted to point you all at this thread explicitly since > it seems that we are getting somewhat close to having a forced unmount > that actually is usable by real applications, something that we seem to > have been talking about for many years ;-) > > With Matthew's original TASK_KILLABLE patch, we have a solution for a > task read, but still have some holes (fsync & fcntl, others?) that need > fixed as well for NFS clients. > > Is this patch going in the right direction?
FWIW, I do think it seems like a good idea to work towards better interruptibility in various potentially long-blocking paths like these. I think Andrea's recent work to solve some oom killer deadlocks probably has some requirements in common with this patch. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
