From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
linux-acpi <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] why do we need run disk sync before entering S3
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:03:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200905131003.15199.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0905122155550.7989-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
On Wednesday 13 May 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Zhang Rui wrote:
>
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > I did some S3 tests on an eeepc901, the total suspend time(from issue
> > the suspend command to power down) is about 2.5s~3s.
> > something interesting is that kernel runs disk sync before entering S3
> > state, and this takes about 0.7~1.2s.
> > my question is that, why do we need this for s2ram?
> > can we remove this and run sys_sync for S4 only?
>
> At the risk of sounding foolish, I'd guess that a system in S3 (or more
> generally, suspend-to-RAM) is a lot more at risk of losing power or
> failing to restore than a normally running system. (A normally running
> system is trivially not at risk of failing to restore!) Consequently
> it makes sense to flush the I/O buffers before entering this state, to
> minimize the potential for loss of data.
>
> When you think about it, a system in S4 is actually _less_ likely to
> run into trouble than one in S3, since it can't fail because of loss of
> power. So if anything, we should remove the disk sync from hibernation
> and leave it in system suspend.
I generally agree, but I think we may also leave the syncing to the user space,
in both cases.
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-13 8:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-13 1:20 [RFC] why do we need run disk sync before entering S3 Zhang Rui
2009-05-13 2:01 ` [linux-pm] " Alan Stern
2009-05-13 8:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2009-05-13 8:45 ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-13 8:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-13 8:57 ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-13 14:06 ` Alan Stern
2009-05-13 14:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-14 9:42 ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-15 1:00 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2009-05-15 9:08 ` suspending machine from kernel (was Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] why do we need run disk sync before entering S3) Pavel Machek
2009-05-15 21:15 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2009-05-15 14:36 ` [linux-pm] [RFC] why do we need run disk sync before entering S3 Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-18 7:25 ` Zhang Rui
2009-05-22 15:33 ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-23 7:59 ` Oliver Neukum
2009-05-23 8:50 ` [linux-pm] [RFC] why do we need run disk sync before entering?S3 Pavel Machek
2009-05-23 9:05 ` Oliver Neukum
2009-05-23 9:45 ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-24 21:02 ` Oliver Neukum
2009-05-24 21:14 ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-19 1:03 ` [RFC] why do we need run disk sync before entering S3 Nigel Cunningham
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200905131003.15199.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox