Hi. On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 16:49 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:> > If the code runs for 20 seconds, it is a bug to be fixed.> > The code gives up after 20 seconds, it does not normally run for 20> seconds. It is arguably a bug that it gives up after 20 seconds since> the time required to freeze all the threads grows with the number of> threads that are running. It could still be making progress after 20> seconds. Since the time required to freeze all tasks is the number of> tasks times the time it takes to interrupt each task there is no way> to ensure that the time required is insignificant. If we do not abort> task freezing when there is a wakeup event, then the worst case wakeup> latency is guarantied to be worse than the worst case latency for any> other uninterruptible kernel call. I agree with Pavel here. If freezing takes 20 seconds, something iswrong. (Remember that most tasks will not be running, and will thereforerespond to the pseudo-signal and freeze immediately). In fact, I'd go further. In the thousands of times I've run the freezerover the years, it has never taken more than 1 second - let alone 20 -when freezing has been successful. A delay of 20 seconds was morerelevant when the value included the time for syncing data to disk. Regards, Nigel _______________________________________________linux-pm mailing listlinux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
