[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] stopmachine: add stopmachine_timeout
Am Dienstag, 15. Juli 2008 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> > btw Rusty, I just had this "why didn't I think of that" moments. This is
> > actually another way of handling my workload. I mean it certainly does not
> > fix the root case of the problems and we still need other things that we
> > talked about (non-blocking module delete, lock-free module insertion, etc)
> > but at least in the mean time it avoids wedging the machines for good.
> > btw I'd like that timeout in milliseconds. I think 5 seconds is way tooooo
> > long :).
> We can make it ms, sure. 200ms should be plenty of time: worst I ever saw
> 150ms, and that was some weird Power box doing crazy stuff. I wouldn't be
> surprised if you'd never see 1ms on your hardware.

I disagree that 5 seconds is to long :-). I even think having it default to 0
is the safest option for virtualized environments. What if the host is paging
like hell and the vcpu cannot run due to a missing page? In that case 200ms
can be an incredible short amount of time. If the timeout triggers,
stop_machine_run fails, but everything would work fine - it just takes

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-16 11:19    [W:0.040 / U:2.536 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site