On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 01:12:02PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote: > Well that is why I have implemented the 1s timeout patch, > which you have already merged (145367baa492246). > If you think that timeout of 1 second is too long, then we can change > it to something more acceptable, but it should be in the order of > 100ms or more to avoid those “false” positives due to high cpu load > that the original code showed. As I've said several times now 1s seems far too long for a busy wait, the driver should fall back to something that sleeps after an initial busy wait (once it's clear we're over time).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
