> > > > 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/
