> > > > Freezing of tasks is slowing down suspend. Don't know how serious
> > > > this is, suspend is pretty fast, but could possibly be even faster.
> > >
> > > It's FUD. Freezing of tasks normally takes next to no time. I've never
> > > understood the rediculously long timeout it has. If freezing succeeds, all
> > > processes are frozen within 1/2 a second tops. If it fails, nothing is going
> > > to change in the following 19.5 seconds (or whatever it is if I don't
> > > remember the value properly).
> >
> > Right. The 20s timeout is again a sign of brokenness.
>
> Are you still serious?
>
> > If we expect something to fail, it should fail immediately, without
> > waiting for arbitrary timeouts.
>
> I don't agree. If you think so, then please tell me what the softlockup
> infrastructure is for.
>
> > And if we don't expect it to fail, why the timeout?
>
> We know that it can fail, so we use the timeout to detect failures.
>
> > Of course we know it can fail (network problems, etc), so it's wrong
> > whatever way we look at it.
>
> Are you trying to say that whatever can fail is wrong?
No. Sorry about the sloppy sentence.
What I was trying to say, is that if we _know_ that the suspend can
fail, it is wrong to have a timeout to determine that it will fail.
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
