Brock Pytlik wrote: > 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? > > actually, 1 seems more reasonable
> 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 > _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
