From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:11:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:11:21 -0400 Received: from mail.loewe-komp.de ([62.156.155.230]:60679 "EHLO mail.loewe-komp.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:11:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3B939DBA.B14FC2CF@loewe-komp.de> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 17:11:54 +0200 From: Peter =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=E4chtler?= Organization: LOEWE. Hannover X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [de] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-ac3 i686) X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: psusi@cfl.rr.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [bug report] NFS and uninterruptable wait states In-Reply-To: <01090310483100.26387@faldara> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Phillip Susi wrote: > [ "mount -tnfs" with hard has default ] > Anyhow, about an hour later ( the mount process still stuck ) I figured out > that the other machine was not running rpc.nfsd, though it was running > rpc.mountd. Once I started rpc.nfsd on the machine, the mount on my box > finally returned ( and was terminated by the SIGKILL that I sent it an hour > before ). > > Could someone confirm that this is a bug, and explain why anything should > ever need to wait in that state? > Well, if you use the option "soft",then your process is interruptible. >>From a user standpoint, I don't understand the requirement of 'D' state. Where this gets really impractical: commands like df or du will hang forever (if the other end is out of your control).