On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM, John K Pate <j.k.pate@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:16:31 +0200 > > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto > >> <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > This is so stupid that it's not even funny. You said that the problem > >> > was having CONFIG_HZ=300 and systemd. I said it is not, because I also > >> > have that situation and it works. So, your point is moot. I didn't say > >> > you don't have a problem, but just that it may be not related to > >> > CONFIG_HZ. I even sent you an article with ways on how to inspect the > >> > behaviour of systemd, which was completely ignored. > >> > >> My problem with CONFIG_HZ exists > >> independently of whether you experience the problem yourself or not. > > > > But it suggests that the problem is not *just* systemd and > > CONFIG_HZ=300. I am, and many others are, running systemd with > > CONFIG_HZ=300 fine. > > Show me two bootcharts, one with CONFIG_HZ_300=y, and another with > CONFIG_HZ_1000=y. Then I will believe that you are running systemd > fine. The other possibility is that you are just not noticing the > problem. > > > If you encountered a problem, there must be some > > other underlying cause. A constructive response would work towards > > finding and addressing the other underlying cause. > > A logical reason would be that systemd is too sensitive on signals > arriving fast, and if that's the case it's quite likely that there is > no easy solution (if any). > > But anyway, my objective is not to improve systemd (I might have tried > that if Lennart wasn't such an asshole), my objective is to show that > systemd has problems, and CONFIG_HZ_300=y is just an example... there > are other issues popping in arch-general that render the system > unbootable. > > Perhaps in the future I will have time to investigate the issue, and > make a proper bug report, and systemd would work properly for me, and > most Arch Linux users, but I believe that's not the case *currently*. > > So I believe the logical course of action is to delay the migration > until systemd is more robust. > > All I want is to minimize the issues that Arch Linux users hit, but > unfortunately so far it seems Arch Linux developers don't care about > how many problems could this move cause. > > Cheers. > > -- > Felipe Contreras > So far it seems you are the only one with this "issue" and you haven't reported any bugs, so I don't see what you hope to accomplish
