From: Russell Miller <rmiller@duskglow.com>
To: Doug McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org>
Cc: "Jim Nelson" <james4765@verizon.net>,
DervishD <lkml@dervishd.net>,
"Gene Heskett" <gene.heskett@verizon.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Måns Rullgård" <mru@inprovide.com>
Subject: Re: is killing zombies possible w/o a reboot?
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:33:30 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200411031733.30469.rmiller@duskglow.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k6t24jsr.fsf@asmodeus.mcnaught.org>
On Wednesday 03 November 2004 17:03, Doug McNaught wrote:
> It was already mentioned in this thread that the bookkeeping required
> to clean up properly from such an abort would add a lot of overhead
> and slow down the normal, non-buggy case.
>
I am going to continue pursuing this at the risk of making a bigger fool of
myself than I already am, but I want to make sure that I understand the
issues - and I did read the message you are referring to.
I think what you are saying is that there is kind of a race condition here.
When something is on the wait queue, it has to be followed through to
completion. An interrupt could be received at any time, and if it's taken
off of the wait queue prematurely, it'll crash the kernel, because the
interrupt has no way of telling that.
That's fine as it goes, I understand that. But I submit that this is a
horrible design. I've been bitten by this more than once - usually regarding
broken NFS connections.
But what I don't understand is why the bookkeeping would be so inefficient.
It seems to me that all that would be required is a bitfield of some sort.
If that position in the qait queue becomes invalid, when the interrupt is
received to process it, the kernel notes that a flag is set invalidating that
part of the wait queue, dumps the output to dave null, and goes on to the
next. This doesn't seem inefficient to me, unless I'm missing something.
A little more inefficient, yes, but not to near the cost that seems to be
implied.
And I also have to ask this question: what is more inefficient, slowing down
processing of output waiting on the queue, or having to reboot when a process
gets stuck due to faulty drivers? At the very least, a compile option seems
like it would be worthwhile for those that would like this behavior.
And I probably am. Missing something, that is.
--Russell
> -Doug
--
Russell Miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - Le Mars, IA
Duskglow Consulting - Helping companies just like you to succeed for ~ 10 yrs.
http://www.duskglow.com - 712-546-5886
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-03 23:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 99+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-03 12:51 is killing zombies possible w/o a reboot? Gene Heskett
2004-11-03 14:33 ` bert hubert
2004-11-03 14:49 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-11-03 15:25 ` DervishD
2004-11-03 15:25 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-11-03 17:49 ` DervishD
2004-11-03 16:47 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-03 17:44 ` DervishD
2004-11-03 18:53 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-03 19:01 ` Doug McNaught
2004-11-03 19:03 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-11-03 19:24 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-03 19:33 ` Doug McNaught
2004-11-03 19:34 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-11-03 19:06 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-11-03 19:26 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-03 19:33 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-11-03 20:09 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 19:24 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-03 19:42 ` DervishD
2004-11-03 23:12 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-04 10:26 ` DervishD
2004-11-04 14:23 ` Paul Slootman
2004-11-04 14:56 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 18:24 ` DervishD
2004-11-04 19:22 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-04 20:53 ` DervishD
2004-11-03 19:26 ` DervishD
2004-11-03 20:18 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-03 22:15 ` Jim Nelson
2004-11-03 22:44 ` Russell Miller
2004-11-03 23:03 ` Doug McNaught
2004-11-03 23:33 ` Russell Miller [this message]
2004-11-03 23:47 ` Mathieu Segaud
2004-11-03 23:56 ` Russell Miller
2004-11-04 0:05 ` Mathieu Segaud
2004-11-04 6:39 ` Denis Vlasenko
2004-11-05 2:38 ` Elladan
2004-11-05 3:10 ` Tim Connors
2004-11-05 3:17 ` Russell Miller
2004-11-05 4:38 ` Elladan
2004-11-05 5:00 ` Kyle Moffett
2004-11-04 20:06 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-03 23:06 ` vlobanov
2004-11-04 10:04 ` Helge Hafting
2004-11-04 17:16 ` Alex Bennee
2004-11-04 16:30 ` Pedro Venda (SYSADM)
2004-11-04 22:28 ` Helge Hafting
2004-11-03 23:07 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-04 1:19 ` Michael Clark
2004-11-04 16:01 ` kernel
2004-11-04 16:18 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 16:47 ` kernel
2004-11-04 17:58 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-03 22:58 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-04 10:23 ` DervishD
2004-11-04 19:32 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-04 21:11 ` DervishD
2004-11-09 23:31 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-10 9:11 ` DervishD
2004-11-03 23:18 ` Adam Heath
2004-11-03 16:38 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-03 16:24 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-03 16:46 ` linux-os
2004-11-03 19:12 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-03 19:56 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-11-03 20:13 ` Helge Hafting
2004-11-03 20:40 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 0:43 ` Kurt Wall
2004-11-04 1:01 ` Russell Miller
2004-11-04 1:38 ` Doug McNaught
2004-11-04 1:45 ` Russell Miller
2004-11-04 1:56 ` Doug McNaught
2004-11-04 1:59 ` Mitchell Blank Jr
2004-11-04 20:10 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-04 10:07 ` Matthias Andree
2004-11-04 22:31 ` Peter Chubb
2004-11-04 23:33 ` Benno
2004-11-03 20:48 ` Tom Felker
2004-11-03 21:08 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 7:19 ` Jan Knutar
2004-11-04 11:57 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 12:12 ` Jan Knutar
2004-11-04 12:18 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 12:29 ` Jan Knutar
2004-11-04 13:56 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 12:39 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 13:01 ` Ian Campbell
2004-11-04 14:07 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 14:24 ` Ian Campbell
2004-11-04 15:10 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 14:26 ` DervishD
2004-11-04 15:13 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 13:10 ` Doug McNaught
2004-11-04 14:11 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 14:42 ` tlaurent
2004-11-04 15:14 ` Gene Heskett
2004-11-04 20:18 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-05 0:29 ` Gene Heskett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200411031733.30469.rmiller@duskglow.com \
--to=rmiller@duskglow.com \
--cc=doug@mcnaught.org \
--cc=gene.heskett@verizon.net \
--cc=james4765@verizon.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@dervishd.net \
--cc=mru@inprovide.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox