Rusty Russell wrote: > On Tuesday 15 July 2008 12:24:54 Max Krasnyansky wrote: >> Heiko Carstens wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:18AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >>> This is asking for trouble... a config option to disable this would be >>> nice. But as I don't know which problem this patch originally addresses >>> it might be that this is needed anyway. So lets see why we need it first. >> How about this. We'll make this a sysctl, as Rusty already did, and set the >> default to 0 which means "never timeout". That way crazy people like me who >> care about this scenario can enable this feature. > > Indeed, this was my thought too. s390 can initialize it to zero somewhere in > their boot code. > >> 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. Sounds good.
> The ipi idea would handle your case a little more nicely, too, but that's > probably not going to hit this merge window. Which reminds me that I wanted to submit a bunch of kthread and workqueue related things in this window :). Max _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
