Hi. On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 01:01 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday 09 May 2009, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 16:40 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > The timeout is actually a workaround for the problem that we don't > > > really > > > know if tasks are going to react to our freeze requests and how much time it is > > > going to take. The current value of 20 s was chosen after a number of > > > experiments showing that in some cases the freezing _was_ going to take so > > > much time. Of course the question is whether it makes sense to give up earlier > > > even if tasks would eventually freeze, but that's a different issue. > > > > What were the circumstances in which freezing could take 20s? > > Compiling the kernel with "make -j<big number>" on a dual core system IIRC. > > Generally, the situation in which there are many runnable tasks and new tasks > come and go etc. I haven't repeated this benchmark recently, though, so it's > probably worth doing again. > > Which has a little to do with the $subject patch IMO, because I think that > it's reasonable to stop freezing tasks as soon as we know that it won't be > necessary anyway. Yes, but it's still good to know. Regards, Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
