On 6 September 2013 15:50, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> Basically, agreed. I've pushed this into master-next for testing
> purposes whilst we discuss what this really should be. I think 5 might
> be a good number.
That certainly seems like a compromise between needless spinning and a
noticeable delta
On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 15:46 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 6 September 2013 15:42, Richard Purdie
> wrote:
> > -sread, swrite, serror = select.select(socklist, [], [], 0)
> > +sread, swrite, serror = select.select(socklist, [], [],
> > 0.1)
>
> As discussed on IM
On 6 September 2013 15:42, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> -sread, swrite, serror = select.select(socklist, [], [], 0)
> +sread, swrite, serror = select.select(socklist, [], [], 0.1)
As discussed on IM, for the purposes of this loop a timeout of seconds
instead of fraction
A 0 value to select.select() immediately returns with no timeout. This was
pegging the cpu at 100% for the python process which was bad and may be
contributing to some of the timeout problems.
Profile from -P of a core-image-minimal before:
97526792 function calls (97525652 primitive calls) i
