On Sunday, 5 August 2007 23:37, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > What happens on loaded ext3 filesystem, for example? Bunch of userland tasks > > > will wait on data to be synced to disk, taking more than second, no? > > > > IMHO this only is a question of what the value of MAX_WAITS should be. > > [I took 5 because it turned to be enough in my testing, but that could be 10 or > > more.] > > > > The point is that in 99.(9)% of cases the 20s timeout is unnecessary, because: > > (1) most often we succeed within 1s > > (2) if we are going to fail, we can say that we'll fail way before the 20s > > expires. > > Well, I've just reproduced 10seconds and 17seconds > time-to-freeze. Okay, I did > > make clean; time make -j 350 > > on kernel (2GB machine). Can you try with something similary evil? I tested with 'make -j 100'. More than that just makes the machine unresponsive. > > Anyway, eventually, I'd like the freezer to detect failures relatively early, > > so the user won't have to wait 20s each time it's going to fail. > > It should not fail ;-). And failures are _really_ rare these days. Is > 20second wait in case of kernel bug that bad? (FUSE case _is_ a kernel > bug, I'm just not sure how to solve it. It is still rare.) Well, not very bad, but still. Perhaps we should use a progress meter of some kind to let the user know that something's going on. ;-) Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
