[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150706111105.GD381@amd>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:11:05 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync()
Hi!
> > Moreover, question is if we really need to carry out the sync on *every*
> > suspend even if it is not pointless overall. That shouldn't really be
> > necessary if we suspend and resume often enough or if we resume only for
> > a while and then suspend again. Maybe it should be rate limited somehow
> > at least?
>
> If you suspend and resume frequently, then the cost of the sync
> shoul dbe negliable because the amount of data dirtied between
> resume/suspend shoul dbe negliable. hence my questions about where
> sync is spending too much time, and whether we've actually fixed
> those problems or not. If sync speed on clean filesystems is a
> problem then we need to fix sync, not work around it.
And yes, that's solution I'd really prefer over adding knobs to
suspend.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists