From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync() Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:11:05 +0200 Message-ID: <20150706111105.GD381@amd> References: <4290667.ZqInAykFGS@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150703014250.GM7943@dastard> <1496051.AgsebokWnB@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150706000614.GB3902@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150706000614.GB3902@dastard> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Alan Stern , One Thousand Gnomes , Linux PM list , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Len Brown List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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