Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1352595
| From | Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Hung task detector versus NFS (TASK_KILLABLE) |
| Date | 2016-03-08 04:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <raglH-3AN-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <radxv-1Da-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
> I write this because I would actually find it useful to see the original > backtrace, even if it is interruptible, not just the collateral damage. > Since the "skipping" of NFS is basically incomplete anyway, how big a > deal is this "feature"? Random backtrace spewing is always a misfeature for 99.99+% of the users for whom it is gibberish. If you really need it yourself add a kprobe. -Andi
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Hung task detector versus NFS (TASK_KILLABLE) Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca> - 2016-03-08 01:20 +0100
Re: Hung task detector versus NFS (TASK_KILLABLE) Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> - 2016-03-08 04:20 +0100
Re: Hung task detector versus NFS (TASK_KILLABLE) Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca> - 2016-03-09 21:30 +0100
csiph-web