[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080526162328.GA9089@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 18:23:28 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bug] stuck localhost TCP connections, v2.6.26-rc3+
* Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > there's a hung distcc task on the system, waiting for socket action
> > forever:
> >
> > [root@...ope ~]# strace -fp 19578
> > Process 19578 attached - interrupt to quit
> > select(5, NULL, [4], [4], {82, 90000} <unfinished ...>
>
> Hmm, readfds is NULL isn't it?!? Are you sure you straced the right
> process?
yes, i'm stracing the task that is hung unexpectedly.
> > disturbing that task via strace did not change the state of the
> > socket - and that's not unexpected as it's a select(). [TCP state
> > might be affected if strace impacted a recvmsg or a sendmsg wait
> > directly.]
>
> I fail to understand this paragraph due to excessive negation... :-)
i mean, sometimes a TCP connection can get 'unstuck' if you strace a
task - that is because the TCP related syscall the task sits in gets
interrupted. But in this case it's select() which doesnt explicitly take
the socket, doesnt do any tcp_push_pending_frames() processing, etc. -
it just its on the socket waitqueue AFAICS. And that's expected.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists