On Tue 2009-05-12 18:55:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Sat 2009-05-09 01:01:01, 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. > > > > IIRC the number happened because I saw up to 5sec under some heavy > > overload, and added some "safety margin". > > No, it appeared after a number of experiments I carried out a couple of years > ago. :-) Ok, that was the "IIRC" part :-). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
