Re: Hibernation Redesign

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, 11 July 2007 14:09, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > 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?

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/