From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:55:50 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] udevd: respect the value of TIMEOUT in uevents
Message-Id: <4A1C1F16.7080100@tuffmail.co.uk>
List-Id: <linux-hotplug.vger.kernel.org>
References: <4A1BBBE6.4040202@tuffmail.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4A1BBBE6.4040202@tuffmail.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org

Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:19, Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>   
>> Don't apply patch 2 then :-).
>>     
>
> No worry, we can not be that fast here. :) We need to get numbers first.
>
> Threads don't come for free, they make udev much less reliable and
> harder to debug, compared to the current model. When all events share
> the same address space, and the memory for the events gets reused for
> forever, a simple bug will likely bring down the entire service,
> unlike today where an event process may crash, but the event
> management daemon will survive. Actually, I don't remember that the
> main udev ever crashed, and that will definitely change with the
> threads. :)
>
> I'm not against a threaded udevd, but we should have a good reason to
> do it that way. We also need to get numbers on bigger boxes. Udev runs
> on boxes with many thousands of events at bootup. we've seen boxes
> with 20.000+ disks, where every disk has ~10 devices in sysfs. Some of
> the SUSE customers requested to be able to run 4000+ events in
> parallel, to bring the bootup time on such boxes down to a reasonable
> time. That all works fine with today's udev and we need to be really
> careful here.
>
> Thanks,
> Kay
>   

Noted and agreed.  I'll work towards a complete series which can be
tested and reviewed as a whole.

Thanks
Alan