From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lock_packed_refs(): allow retries when acquiring the packed-refs lock Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:49:41 -0400 Message-ID: <20150511164941.GA30541@peff.net> References: <1430491977-25817-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> <1430491977-25817-3-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> <20150501182257.GA27728@peff.net> <55445E60.6010205@alum.mit.edu> <20150505192110.GD10463@peff.net> <555083CF.8010205@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Stefan Beller , Junio C Hamano , "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 11 18:49:58 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Yrqtv-0007VK-LE for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 11 May 2015 18:49:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753195AbbEKQtr (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2015 12:49:47 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:56663 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753116AbbEKQtp (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2015 12:49:45 -0400 Received: (qmail 10251 invoked by uid 102); 11 May 2015 16:49:44 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 11 May 2015 11:49:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 11859 invoked by uid 107); 11 May 2015 16:50:18 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 11 May 2015 12:50:18 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 11 May 2015 12:49:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <555083CF.8010205@alum.mit.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:26:23PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > So something like 100ms max backoff makes sense to me, in that it keeps > > us in the same order of magnitude as the expected time that the lock is > > held. [...] > > I don't understand your argument. If another process blocks us for on > the order of 100 ms, the backoff time (reading from my table) is less > than half of that. I think it is just that I was agreeing with you, but communicated it badly. I think your series is fine as-is. -Peff