Ok, then since we've observed time can be negative, that's the right delay in this situation? Would replacing 0 with 10 make everyone happy?
Brock jmr wrote: > Brock if we ever hit next_check_time < 0 and set next_check_time = 0: > > 333 + if next_check_time < 0: > 334 + next_check_time = 0 > > Then you will go into a spin in the call to: > 337 + gobject.timeout_add(0, self.do_next_check) > > This is what was happening in the bug we tracked down last week. > > JR > > Brock Pytlik wrote: >> Webrev: >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bpytlik/ips-5171-v1/ >> >> Bug: >> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=5171 >> Updatemanager eating 50% of the CPU >> >> This changes so that the next check to check for updates isn't >> scheduled until after the current check for updates happens. >> >> Brock >> _______________________________________________ >> pkg-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
