Am Dienstag, 15. Juli 2008 schrieb Rusty Russell: > > btw Rusty, I just had this "why didn't I think of that" moments. This is > > actually another way of handling my workload. I mean it certainly does not > > fix the root case of the problems and we still need other things that we > > talked about (non-blocking module delete, lock-free module insertion, etc) > > but at least in the mean time it avoids wedging the machines for good. > > btw I'd like that timeout in milliseconds. I think 5 seconds is way tooooo > > long :). > > We can make it ms, sure. 200ms should be plenty of time: worst I ever saw was > 150ms, and that was some weird Power box doing crazy stuff. I wouldn't be > surprised if you'd never see 1ms on your hardware. I disagree that 5 seconds is to long :-). I even think having it default to 0 is the safest option for virtualized environments. What if the host is paging like hell and the vcpu cannot run due to a missing page? In that case 200ms can be an incredible short amount of time. If the timeout triggers, stop_machine_run fails, but everything would work fine - it just takes longer. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
