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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
