Thanks, sounds good.
Ethan
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 14:07, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 07:40:44PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 06:43:12PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> > > I'd always assumed that the EWMA code here was sufficient rate-limiting,
>> > > but I a
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 07:40:44PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 06:43:12PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > > I'd always assumed that the EWMA code here was sufficient rate-limiting,
> > > but I actually encountered a pathological case some time ago that forced
> > > this rusage
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 06:43:12PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > I'd always assumed that the EWMA code here was sufficient rate-limiting,
> > but I actually encountered a pathological case some time ago that forced
> > this rusage information to print once a second or so, which seems too
> > ofte
> I'd always assumed that the EWMA code here was sufficient rate-limiting,
> but I actually encountered a pathological case some time ago that forced
> this rusage information to print once a second or so, which seems too
> often.
Could you give a bit more detail on "EWMA" in the commit message? I
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 02:10:18PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> I'd always assumed that the EWMA code here was sufficient rate-limiting,
> but I actually encountered a pathological case some time ago that forced
> this rusage information to print once a second or so, which seems too
> often.
>
> Sign
I'd always assumed that the EWMA code here was sufficient rate-limiting,
but I actually encountered a pathological case some time ago that forced
this rusage information to print once a second or so, which seems too
often.
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff
---
lib/timeval.c | 65 +++
