On Sat, 4 Jul 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The only argument against dropping sys_sync() from the suspend code path
> I've seen in this thread that I entirely agree with is that it may lead to
> regressions, because we've done it practically forever and it may hide latent
> bugs somewhere in block drivers etc. Dropping it, though, is the only way
> to see those bugs, if any, and if we want to ever fix them, we need to see
> them. That's why I think that it may be a good idea to allow people to
> drop it if they are willing to accept some extra risk (via the kernel
> command line, for example).
I'd be perfectly happy to have the sync selectable at runtime, one way
or another. The three most reasonable options seem to be:
kernel command line
sysfs file
sysctl setting
The command line is less flexible (it can't be changed after booting).
Either of the other two would be fine with me.
> 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?
For example, skip the sync if the system has been awake for < 100 ms?
The cutoff time could also be controlled by the sysfs file: -1 =>
never sync, 0 => always sync, > 0 => sync if the system has been awake
longer than the value.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
