[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1684935.fYtBRJbzgO@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 01:54:09 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
Cc: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: make sync() on suspend-to-RAM optional
On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 02:58:22 PM Brown, Len wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Austin S Hemmelgarn [mailto:ahferroin7@...il.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:07 AM
> > To: Pavel Machek; Len Brown
> > Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net; linux-pm@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org; Brown, Len
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: make sync() on suspend-to-RAM optional
> >
> > On 2015-07-15 02:43, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Tue 2015-07-14 22:24:51, Len Brown wrote:
> > >> From: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> > >>
> > >> The Linux kernel suspend path has traditionally invoked sys_sync().
> > >>
> > >> But sys_sync() can be expensive, and some systems do not want
> > >> to pay the cost of sys_sync() on every suspend.
> > >
> > > Have you measured how expensive it can be, and why it is expensive?
>
> > How expensive it is can vary widely, but it pretty much boils down to
> > how much dirty data still needs written out, and how slow the storage it
> > needs written to is. There's not really much that can be done in the
> > kernel to change this, and most userspace suspend systems call sync
> > themselves during the suspend sequence.
>
> Right.
> And now, user-space gets is no longer forced to incur that
> delay on every suspend if they do not want it.
>
> Yes, have measured this under many conditions.
> The bottom line is that sys_sync() is rarely as fast as 1ms,
> and is sometimes as slow as hundreds of ms.
>
> >> Why do you need CONFIG parameter?
>
> So that an OS that doesn't want to change their user-space,
> can build a kernel that does what they want by default.
>
> Originally I had the config parameter remove this code entirely,
> which would achieve the same goal.
> But Rafael prefers the sysfs attribute always exist
> and the config simply set the default.
Indeed.
And so I'm queuing this patch up for 4.3 (with a couple of minor fixups).
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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