From: Oliver Neukum (oneukum@suse.com) Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:24:07 +0200
Am Dienstag, den 23.05.2017, 20:06 +0100 schrieb Jim Baxter:
quoted
From: David S. Miller (davem@davemloft.net)
Sent: Tue, 23 May 2017 11:26:25 -0400
quoted
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 10:42:48 +0200
quoted
We could use a counter. After the first failure, do it once, after the
second twice and so on. And reset the counter as a higher order
allocation works. (just bound it somewhere)
So an exponential backoff, that might work.
As an idea I have created this patch as an addition to the original patch
in this series.
Would this be acceptable?
At the moment I have capped the value at 10, does anyone think it needs to
be much higher then that?
Hi,
I am working through mail backlog. If I may ask, has this patch proposal
had a result or does something need to be done still?
Regards
Oliver
Hi,
I have not received any response to my additional patch yet.
Do you think I should submit it as a second RFC patchset?
Regards,
Jim