Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 339964 - Annoying repetition of "Waiting for xxx 50 41 32 23 14 5 seconds...
Summary: Annoying repetition of "Waiting for xxx 50 41 32 23 14 5 seconds...
Status: RESOLVED TEST-REQUEST
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: [OLD] Core system (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Linux bug wranglers
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-10-06 18:05 UTC by PetaMem R&D
Modified: 2010-11-20 15:34 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description PetaMem R&D 2010-10-06 18:05:49 UTC
I just had the most annoying Gentoo shutdown experience ever. I would therefore like to make best use of the sacrificed 17.5+ minutes shutdown time to report this bug.

Situation: Notebook via WLAN connected to Home(Office) Network and mounted NFS Shares. NFS Server went down, mounts remained. Happens from time to time. Now shutdown the notebook. and You see:

Waiting for netmount 50 ... 41 ... 32 ... 23 ... 14 ... 5 seconds

I thought "Ok - that's understandable, because of the hanging NFS"

But then after having counted that time out you read

"Waiting for rpc.statd" ... 50 seconds
then rpc.bind
then net.lo
localmount
mtab
root
fsck
modules
udev
udev-mount
sysfs
hwclock

interwoven with this, there are similar timeouts of "X waiting for net.wlan0"
where X is

netmount
mtab
root
fsck
modules
udev
udev-mount
sysfs
hwclock

After at least 1050 seconds, the system decided to reboot. Meanwhile the screensaver went on 2 times. :-)

I assume openrc is responsible for this. Couldn't one establish a kind of global timeout mechanism to avoid these mindless repetitions?


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Mount some NFS Share via WLAN
2. Shutdown NFS Server but do not unmount
3. Shutdown the Notebook

Actual Results:  
see description

Expected Results:  
Just one timeout
Comment 1 PetaMem R&D 2010-10-06 18:10:05 UTC
$ emerge --info
Portage 2.1.9.6 (default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop/kde, gcc-4.4.4, glibc-2.12.1-r1, 2.6.35-tuxonice-r1 x86_64)
=================================================================
System uname: Linux-2.6.35-tuxonice-r1-x86_64-Intel-R-_Core-TM-2_CPU_T7200_@_2.00GHz-with-gentoo-2.0.1
Timestamp of tree: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:30:01 +0000
distcc 3.1 x86_64-pc-linux-gnu [disabled]
app-shells/bash:     4.1_p7
dev-java/java-config: 1.3.7-r1, 2.1.11
dev-lang/python:     2.6.5-r3, 3.1.2-r4
dev-util/cmake:      2.8.1-r2
sys-apps/baselayout: 2.0.1
sys-apps/openrc:     0.6.3
sys-apps/sandbox:    2.3-r1
sys-devel/autoconf:  2.13, 2.67
sys-devel/automake:  1.5, 1.7.9-r1::<unknown repository>, 1.9.6-r3, 1.10.3, 1.11.1
sys-devel/binutils:  2.20.1-r1
sys-devel/gcc:       4.4.4-r1
sys-devel/gcc-config: 1.4.1
sys-devel/libtool:   2.2.10
sys-devel/make:      3.81-r2
virtual/os-headers:  2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers)
Comment 2 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) archtester gentoo-dev Security 2010-10-06 18:14:57 UTC
Similar to bug 256188
Comment 3 PetaMem R&D 2010-10-06 18:45:50 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Similar to bug 256188

Indeed, except the notebook does shutdown here after the timeout odyssey and it is reproducible (have just tried it a second time)

Comment 4 Jory A. Pratt gentoo-dev 2010-10-11 00:43:39 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Similar to bug 256188
> 
> Indeed, except the notebook does shutdown here after the timeout odyssey and it
> is reproducible (have just tried it a second time)
> 

Problem is your using a rare case where this happens. There is no way all cases can or should be supported. They are avaliable to ease the users experience.
Comment 5 Panagiotis Christopoulos (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-11-20 15:22:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Indeed, except the notebook does shutdown here after the timeout odyssey and it
> is reproducible (have just tried it a second time)
>
Ok, after > 1 month, do you still want us to process this bug?  And what do you propose exactly? 

# Do we allow any started service in the runlevel to satisfy the depedency
# or do we want all of them regardless of state? For example, if net.eth0
# and net.eth1 are in the default runlevel then with rc_depend_strict="NO"
# both will be started, but services that depend on 'net' will work if either
# one comes up. With rc_depend_strict="YES" we would require them both to
# come up.
#rc_depend_strict="YES"

Does, setting rc_depend_strict="NO" in /etc/rc.conf change something in your case? 

I resolve this bug as TEST-REQUEST. Reopen if you still want this processed. 

 

Comment 6 PetaMem R&D 2010-11-20 15:34:46 UTC
TEST-REQUEST accepted, I'm currently fine-tuning a new notebook on linux and will be in the vicinity of the NFS Server next week where I will perform the tests with the new machine.