* Radoslaw Szkodzinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > iirc TASK_KILLABLE fixed NFS only. While that's a good thing there > > are unfortunately a lot more subsystems that would need the same > > treatment. > > Yes, that's exactly why the patch is needed - to find the bugs and fix > them. Otherwise you'll have problems finding some places to convert to > TASK_KILLABLE. > > CIFS and similar have to be fixed - it tends to lock the app using it, > in unkillable state.
Amen. I still have to see a single rational argument against this debugging feature - and tons of arguments were listed in favor of it. So let's just try and see what happens. > > Yes let's break things first instead of looking at the implications > > closely. > > Throwing _rare_ stack traces is not breakage. 120s > task_uninterruptible in the usual case (no errors) is already broken - > there are no sane loads that can invoke that IMO. > > A stack trace on x subsystem error is not that bad, especially as > these are limited to 10 per session. we could lower that limit to 1 per bootup - if they become annoying. There's lots of flexibility in the code. Really, we should have done this 10 years ago - it would have literally saved me many days of debugging time combined, and i really have experience in identifying such bad tasks. (and it would have sped up debugging in countless number of instances when users were met with an uninterruptible task.) Ingo -- 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/