Re: killall -9 does not work !?

From: Chris Wedgwood (cw@f00f.org)
Date: Tue May 23 2000 - 17:42:49 EST


On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 03:23:02PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:

            Is it just 'down', or should there never be an 'unkillable'
    user-level process? I.e. -- in SunOS, you could mount NFS as
    intr, or not. Basically if you were mounted 'hard' and didn't
    specify 'intr', you couldn't interrupt a process with kill -9
    that was trying to access a hard mounted filesystem. So even if
    your sever went down -- you couldn't kill it. This is consistent
    with the unix paradigm of a single fs write being indivisible.

I've seen processes get stuck under high IO load myself, it's a bug
(or rather was, I've not seen it for some time). I had no NFS on
these machines.

Generally, if something gets stuck in 'down' for a very long time,
then something is probably broken (exceptions like NFS do exist
presumably).
    
            Does Linux not have a similar semantic for NFS? Would it
    have such a 'special case' anywhere else?

umount2 allows you for forcibly unmount a file-system, would this not
be better?

  --cw

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 21:00:25 EST