[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200807161115.55214.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:15:55 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stopmachine: add stopmachine_timeout
Am Dienstag, 15. Juli 2008 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> > btw Rusty, I just had this "why didn't I think of that" moments. This is
> > actually another way of handling my workload. I mean it certainly does not
> > fix the root case of the problems and we still need other things that we
> > talked about (non-blocking module delete, lock-free module insertion, etc)
> > but at least in the mean time it avoids wedging the machines for good.
> > btw I'd like that timeout in milliseconds. I think 5 seconds is way tooooo
> > long :).
>
> We can make it ms, sure. 200ms should be plenty of time: worst I ever saw
was
> 150ms, and that was some weird Power box doing crazy stuff. I wouldn't be
> surprised if you'd never see 1ms on your hardware.
I disagree that 5 seconds is to long :-). I even think having it default to 0
is the safest option for virtualized environments. What if the host is paging
like hell and the vcpu cannot run due to a missing page? In that case 200ms
can be an incredible short amount of time. If the timeout triggers,
stop_machine_run fails, but everything would work fine - it just takes
longer.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists