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 11:17:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:17:01 -0400 Received: from mail.loewe-komp.de ([62.156.155.230]:63495 "EHLO mail.loewe-komp.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:16:53 -0400 Message-ID: <3B939F1A.7ACEA187@loewe-komp.de> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 17:17:46 +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, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [bug report] NFS and uninterruptable wait states In-Reply-To: <01090310483100.26387@faldara> <3B939DBA.B14FC2CF@loewe-komp.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Peter Wächtler wrote: > > 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). Err, "intr" will give you interruptible state. "hard" will retry forever, "soft" will timeout and give up . sorry