From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:49:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lock_packed_refs(): allow retries when acquiring the packed-refs lock
Message-ID: <20150511164941.GA30541@peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <555083CF.8010205@alum.mit.edu>

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:26:23PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:

> > So something like 100ms max backoff makes sense to me, in that it keeps
> > us in the same order of magnitude as the expected time that the lock is
> > held. [...]
> 
> I don't understand your argument. If another process blocks us for on
> the order of 100 ms, the backoff time (reading from my table) is less
> than half of that.

I think it is just that I was agreeing with you, but communicated it
badly. I think your series is fine as-is.

-Peff