Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxl: Increase device model startup timeout to 1min.

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [PATCH] libxl: Increase device model startup 
timeout to 1min."):
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Anthony PERARD writes ("Re: [PATCH] libxl: Increase device model startup 
> > timeout to 1min."):

> > In the third case we probably need a general-purpose facility for
> > adjusting timeouts in general.  People who do not expect to overload
> > their toolstack domain should not be made to await massive timeout
> > values designed for people who do.
> 
> But they are not actually made to await any timeouts: the timeout is
> only to check whether QEMU started. Users are only made to await
> timeouts in case of errors. Is that what you meant?
> In the normal case, we could have a timeout of 1h and users wouldn't
> tell the difference.

Sadly errors are far not uncommon.  Making someone wait 1h for an
inevitable error message would be quite unreasonable.

> >   * The number and nature of parallel operations done in the stress
> >     test is unreasonable for the provided hardware:
> >       => the timeout is fine
> 
> I don't know if it is our place to make this call.  Should we really be
> deciding what is considered "reasonable"? I think not. Defining what is
> reasonable and policies that match it is not a route I think we should
> take in libxl.

Nevertheless if we are defining timeouts we are implicitly setting
some parameters which imply that certain configurations are
unreasonable.  Hopefully all such configurations are absurd.

If what you mean is that our bounds of `reasonable' should be very
wide, then I agree.  If anyone could reasonably expect it to work,
then that is fine.  Certainly we should refrain fromk subjective
judgements.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel