From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>,
Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>,
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 3/3] Freezer: Replace the timeout
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:37:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070805213728.GA30770@elf.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200708011243.25276.rjw@sisk.pl>
Hi!
> > What happens on loaded ext3 filesystem, for example? Bunch of userland tasks
> > will wait on data to be synced to disk, taking more than second, no?
>
> IMHO this only is a question of what the value of MAX_WAITS should be.
> [I took 5 because it turned to be enough in my testing, but that could be 10 or
> more.]
>
> The point is that in 99.(9)% of cases the 20s timeout is unnecessary, because:
> (1) most often we succeed within 1s
> (2) if we are going to fail, we can say that we'll fail way before the 20s
> expires.
Well, I've just reproduced 10seconds and 17seconds
time-to-freeze. Okay, I did
make clean; time make -j 350
on kernel (2GB machine). Can you try with something similary evil?
> Anyway, eventually, I'd like the freezer to detect failures relatively early,
> so the user won't have to wait 20s each time it's going to fail.
It should not fail ;-). And failures are _really_ rare these days. Is
20second wait in case of kernel bug that bad? (FUSE case _is_ a kernel
bug, I'm just not sure how to solve it. It is still rare.)
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-05 21:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-25 12:01 [RFC][PATCH -mm 0/2] Freezer: Use wait queue instead of busy looping Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-25 12:03 ` [RFC][PATCH -mm 1/2] Freezer: Be more verbose Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-25 12:27 ` Pavel Machek
2007-07-25 12:09 ` [RFC][PATCH -mm 2/2] Freezer: Use wait queue instead of busy looping Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-25 12:28 ` Pavel Machek
2007-07-25 12:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-25 13:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-07-25 14:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-25 14:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-07-26 12:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-26 12:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-31 8:01 ` Pavel Machek
2007-07-31 9:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-31 10:00 ` Pavel Machek
2007-07-31 10:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-31 10:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-31 10:02 ` Pavel Machek
2007-07-31 22:25 ` [RFC][PATCH -mm 0/3] Freezer: Use wait queue instead of busy looping (updated) Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-31 22:26 ` [RFC][PATCH -mm 1/3] Freezer: Use wait queue instead of busy looping Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-08-01 7:59 ` Pavel Machek
2007-07-31 22:28 ` [RFC][PATCH -mm 2/3] Freezer: Measure the time of freezing tasks Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-08-01 8:28 ` Pavel Machek
2007-07-31 22:29 ` [RFC][PATCH -mm 3/3] Freezer: Replace the timeout Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-08-01 8:31 ` Pavel Machek
2007-08-01 10:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-08-05 21:37 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2007-08-05 22:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-08-05 22:53 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070805213728.GA30770@elf.ucw.cz \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=dilinger@debian.org \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=nigel@nigel.suspend2.net \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox