Re: When Kill dosen't work
From: Tony Lawrence (foo_at_pcunix.com)
Date: 08/04/05
- Next message: Tony Lawrence: "Re: When Kill dosen't work"
- Previous message: Robert Newson: "Re: Windows Vista Beta 1 is already superior to Linux."
- In reply to: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: When Kill dosen't work"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: When Kill dosen't work"
- Reply: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: When Kill dosen't work"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:28:47 -0400
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> There is no "response". The thread is simply in the middle of kernel
> code somewhere. Sure, it looks to be in some code that is waiting on
> something, but zillions of things do that. It was up to the writer of
> the kernel code involved not to do a wait-forever, but instead a wait-1s
> and repeat until tired. I NEVER do an unbounded wait. But the code is
> simpler if you do an unbounded wait because you never have to consider
> the timeout case - which can be nasty.
>
> Peter
No, no - I'm not saying that the kernel should try to decide on its own
that something has been waiting too long. I'm saying an admin should be
able to tell the kernel to clean up the whole gooey mess as much as
possible in the faint hope that the hardware can be returned to normal
operation.
-- Tony Lawrence Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
- Next message: Tony Lawrence: "Re: When Kill dosen't work"
- Previous message: Robert Newson: "Re: Windows Vista Beta 1 is already superior to Linux."
- In reply to: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: When Kill dosen't work"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: When Kill dosen't work"
- Reply: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: When Kill dosen't work"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|