On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Well, you cannot tell your local power plant "you must not fail this
> > very moment" either. Of course, data will be lost when a process is
> > killed from "D" state, but if the admin can tell the data will be lost
> > either way, ...
>
> Gaack... Just how do you kill a process that holds a bunch of semaphores
> and got blocked on attempt to take one more? It's not about lost data,
> it's about completely screwed kernel.
Well, if that process holds processes and blocks getting one more,
something is wrong with the process and it's prone to deadlocks. Even if
kill -9 just means "fail this all further syscalls instantly" in such
cases, that'd be fine. Something like an "BEING KILLED" state for
processes.
-- Matthias Andree"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 23 2001 - 21:00:24 EST