Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway

Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-07-03T21:25:41Z

On Tuesday, 3 July 2007 21:27, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > The main reason for deadlocks is because we do a sys_sync() after the
> > > > freeze, which we shouldn't do.
> > >
> > > So why don't we remove the sys_sync() from freeze_processes() instead?
> >
> > The patch follows (untested).
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Rafael
> >
> >
> > ---
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> >
> > We shouldn't sync filesystems from within the freezer, because it's not needed
> > for suspend to RAM and leads to problems with FUSE.
>
> Actually... It is not _needed_ for suspend to disk, either. Snapshot is
> atomic, so it should be okay to suspend with filesystems dirty.
>
> _But_, if anything goes wrong, we'd prefer to have at least
> filesystems synced. Battery running out during s2ram is not quite
> uncommon, so we perhaps should do sync somewhere there. (But we can do
> it before freezer just fine).

OK

So, should I add the sync() to suspend_prepare(), before freeze_processes()
(in analogy with hibernate())?

Greetings
Rafael

--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth