Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 16:13 +1000, Samuel Mendoza-Jonas wrote: > >> "It sounds reasonable" was more or less the inspiration :) >> While I was going over some of the code relating to the previous kexec >> fix with Ben he pointed this out and suggested there wasn't >> much of a reason to differentiate between a crashing/non-crashing >> cpu as far as the timeout goes - if we're not 'crashing' we still >> don't want to spin forever. >> >> I'll let Ben comment on whether 1s per cpu is enough. > > Well, if the scheduler doesn't give us the CPU at the point of kexec > within a second, I think we are in pretty bad shape already, don't you > think ?
Quite likely, I think my dislike of magic timeouts just kicked in :) _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
