Re: Hibernation Redesign

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Wednesday, 11 July 2007 14:29, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > > 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.

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean ...

If there are conditions in which it's not a good idea to hibernate (let's
consider hibernation only for clarity), I think we can use a timeout.

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth