From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 29 09:28:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0214F16A4DA for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:28:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from karagodov@gmail.com) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.176]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C3C43D5F for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:28:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from karagodov@gmail.com) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id o67so2625324pye for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:28:06 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=DNdwpquPpGIF7cqOLSXNSiRW6UxgBY9pA+CzCdqm6jJrihCVcCjYuEfDjDuCjL6JCjy4dR63NqD2YT7K2WbpEiy0KyHP9mv1u1CkcvhfzzTl55h4BqGP76euA1Ws06brEI82eJFKZaDftSW94VO+DiRwegBo141FhSiaSmvyzbE= Received: by 10.35.49.4 with SMTP id b4mr14509673pyk; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.66.6 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:28:00 +0400 From: "Alexey Karagodov" To: "Peter Jeremy" In-Reply-To: <20060829075034.GA727@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200608281220.k7SCKoJW054182@lurza.secnetix.de> <20060828124935.G62656@saturn.araneidae.co.uk> <20060829075034.GA727@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Michael Abbott , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS locking: lockf freezes (rpc.lockd problem?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:28:10 -0000 it's all is very good, but what can you say about to fix problem with rpc.lockd ??? 2006/8/29, Peter Jeremy : > > On Mon, 2006-Aug-28 13:23:30 +0000, Michael Abbott wrote: > >I think there is a case to be made for special casing SIGKILL, but in a > >sense it's not so much the fate of the process receiving the SIGKILL that > >counts: after all, having sent -9 I know that it will never process > again. > > Currently, if you send SIGKILL, the process will never enter userland > again. > > Going further, so that if you send a process SIGKILL, it will always > terminate immediately is significantly more difficult. In the normal > case, a process is sleeping on some condition with PCATCH specified. > If the process receives a signal, sleep(9) will return ERESTART or > EINTR and the code has to then arrange to return back to userland > (which will cause the signal to be handled as per sigaction(2) and > the processes signal handlers). In some cases, it may be inconvenient > to unwind back to userland from a particular point so PCATCH isn't > specified on the sleep. > > -- > Peter Jeremy > > >