On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 16:13 +1000, Samuel Mendoza-Jonas wrote:

"It sounds reasonable" was more or less the inspiration :)
While I was going over some of the code relating to the previous kexec
fix with Ben he pointed this out and suggested there wasn't
much of a reason to differentiate between a crashing/non-crashing
cpu as far as the timeout goes - if we're not 'crashing' we still
don't want to spin forever.

I'll let Ben comment on whether 1s per cpu is enough.

Well, if the scheduler doesn't give us the CPU at the point of kexec
within a second, I think we are in pretty bad shape already, don't you
think ?

I don't mind bumping the timeout of you have worries...

Cheers,
Ben.