Hi!
> >Thanks for this patch. But why hasn't it been included into
> >the kernel earlier? Wouldn't be a combination of yours and my
>
> It's basically included into 2.4.x.
>
> >patch be the proper way? As far as I understand you switch
>
> Your patch is sure fine. BTW, 2.4.x have an high limi
Hi!
> o developpers,
>
> this is a short description of a particular wish of notebook
> users. Since kernel 2.2.11 the buffer flushing deamon is no longer
> a user space program but part of the kernel (in fs/buffer.c).
>
> Before this kernel release it was the bdflush-program which
> could
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Dave Zarzycki wrote:
> > Personally speaking, I always thought it would be nice if the kernel
> > flushed dirty buffers right before a disk spins down. It seems silly to me
> > that a disk can spin down with writes pending.
>
> Absolutely. That allows
Hi!
> > On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Would it be possible to detect when the disk spins up, and do the flush then?
> > Yes if you had a continuious polling of power status wrt standby.
>
> I think the following flushing policy would work almost as well, while
> remaining gen
Dave Zarzycki wrote:
> Personally speaking, I always thought it would be nice if the kernel
> flushed dirty buffers right before a disk spins down. It seems silly to me
> that a disk can spin down with writes pending.
Absolutely. That allows more time spun down too.
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe fr
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Would it be possible to detect when the disk spins up, and do the flush then?
Personally speaking, I always thought it would be nice if the kernel
flushed dirty buffers right before a disk spins down. It seems silly to me
that a disk can spin down wi
Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Would it be possible to detect when the disk spins up, and do the flush then?
> Yes if you had a continuious polling of power status wrt standby.
I think the following flushing policy would work almost as well, while
remaining
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
>at least a day, IMO. There's probably no reason it can't effectively
>be infinite. The kernel shouldn't be enforcing policy in this area.
Right. An embedded usage where there are no writeable blockdevices can
just set the interval to zero and avoid a sch
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Tim Brunne wrote:
>Thanks for this patch. But why hasn't it been included into
>the kernel earlier? Wouldn't be a combination of yours and my
It's basically included into 2.4.x.
>patch be the proper way? As far as I understand you switch
Your patch is sure fine. BTW, 2.4.x
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Alan you assume that you only have one disk (this is okay).
How does this wakeup a spindown?
If you call a 'SETMULTI" and the drive is not ready it may/will hang the
system. This is why I think that the issue of a reset and then a polling
loop of checkpower un
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 03:25:35PM +0200, Tim Brunne wrote:
> > Thanks for this patch. But why hasn't it been included into
> > the kernel earlier? Wouldn't be a combination of yours and my
> > patch be the proper way? As far as I understand you switc
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Russell King wrote:
> Also, please note that I was talking about the whole machine, NOT just
> the hard drive.
Okay, but I was responding based upon the subject line.
Cheers
Andre Hedrick
The Linux ATA/IDE guy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lin
Christoph Rohland writes:
> Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (and I've seen my Thinkpad 380XD with RH's 2.2.14-5.0 kernel and
> > RH's apmd run itself dead. Kill apmd and it'll do the right thing
> > and suspend, then hibernate. And no, I haven't even attempted to
> > debugg it yet).
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jamie Lokier writes:
> > With laptops, people are willing
> > to assume the RAM is reliable -- accidentally pulling the plug out won't
> > lose the data.
>
> But a buggy apm implementation and the battery running down can.
>
> (and I've seen my Thinkpa
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Tim Brunne wrote:
> I think Jamie is right. The nice feature of the old
> bdflushd deamon was, that disk writes were possible
> without spin up of the disk, because of RAM
> buffering. This is achived again by patching the
> kernel later than 2.2.10.
It is still possible with
Tim Brunne writes:
> Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > Jamie Lokier writes:
> > > Russell King wrote:
> > > > > With laptops, people are willing
> > > > > to assume the RAM is reliable -- accidentally pulling the plug out won't
> > > > > lose the data.
> > > >
> > > > But a buggy apm implementation and
> I have and offered it to the folks at linuxcare the apmd guys.
> The ideas were to create an ioctl pair that would/could knock-out a drive
> and preserve the settings, because the reset command to wake it up flushes
> the settings. Thus after the wakeup reset, and a checkpower-loop for
> ready-
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 03:25:35PM +0200, Tim Brunne wrote:
> Thanks for this patch. But why hasn't it been included into
> the kernel earlier? Wouldn't be a combination of yours and my
> patch be the proper way? As far as I understand you switch
> off automatic buffer flushing completely, but it
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Tim Brunne wrote:
>
> >*a silent hard disk hard disk is no longer feasible since kernel
> >2.2.11*.
>
> Try:
>
> echo 40 500 64 256 0 >/proc/sys/vm/bdflush
>
> once you want to return to the old behaviour:
>
> echo 40
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Tim Brunne wrote:
>*a silent hard disk hard disk is no longer feasible since kernel
>2.2.11*.
Try:
echo 40 500 64 256 0 >/proc/sys/vm/bdflush
once you want to return to the old behaviour:
echo 40 500 64 256 500 >/proc/sys/vm/bdfl
Richard Gooch wrote:
> Jamie Lokier writes:
> > Russell King wrote:
> > > > With laptops, people are willing
> > > > to assume the RAM is reliable -- accidentally pulling the plug out won't
> > > > lose the data.
> > >
> > > But a buggy apm implementation and the battery running down can.
> >
> >
Andre Hedrick writes:
> If apmd could issue a WIN_STANDBY value and execute WIN_STANDBYNOW1 then
> the drive would know the thresholds to attempt a "suspend". Where as an
> issue of WIN_SLEEPNOW1 would "hibernate" the drive.
Ok, so that deals with the hard drive, so the series of events
on hiber
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Russell King wrote:
> Andre Hedrick writes:
> > You know that it would take me 25 minutes or less to fix the code if I had
> > a full native taskfile. This would allow a (void *)(void) to be set in
> > kernel apmd and have all the drive data and callouts.
>
> Andre,
>
> I t
Andre Hedrick writes:
> You know that it would take me 25 minutes or less to fix the code if I had
> a full native taskfile. This would allow a (void *)(void) to be set in
> kernel apmd and have all the drive data and callouts.
Andre,
I totally fail to see how taskfile will fix the problem of a
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Russell King wrote:
> Jamie Lokier writes:
> > With laptops, people are willing
> > to assume the RAM is reliable -- accidentally pulling the plug out won't
> > lose the data.
>
> But a buggy apm implementation and the battery running down can.
>
> (and I've seen my Thinkpad
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:32:27AM +0200, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> You're right, but what you're missing is that with "noflushd", it was
> possible to keep the disk spun down _even with pending writes_.
You may tweak /proc/sys/vm/bdflush
to have it collect data for a long time before it is written t
Jamie Lokier writes:
> Russell King wrote:
> > > With laptops, people are willing
> > > to assume the RAM is reliable -- accidentally pulling the plug out won't
> > > lose the data.
> >
> > But a buggy apm implementation and the battery running down can.
>
> Well, perhaps the risk is worth it.
Russell King wrote:
> > With laptops, people are willing
> > to assume the RAM is reliable -- accidentally pulling the plug out won't
> > lose the data.
>
> But a buggy apm implementation and the battery running down can.
Well, perhaps the risk is worth it.
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this l
Jamie Lokier writes:
> With laptops, people are willing
> to assume the RAM is reliable -- accidentally pulling the plug out won't
> lose the data.
But a buggy apm implementation and the battery running down can.
(and I've seen my Thinkpad 380XD with RH's 2.2.14-5.0 kernel and
RH's apmd run itse
Russell King wrote:
> > *a silent hard disk hard disk is no longer feasible since kernel
> > 2.2.11*.
>
> Yes it is. I have one of my machines (which NFS serves a NFS root
> client, both of which are on 24 hours a day) capable of spinning
> down for up to 4 hours at a time, with no kernel modifi
Tim Brunne writes:
> *a silent hard disk hard disk is no longer feasible since kernel
> 2.2.11*.
Yes it is. I have one of my machines (which NFS serves a NFS root
client, both of which are on 24 hours a day) capable of spinning
down for up to 4 hours at a time, with no kernel modifications
what
Hello developpers,
this is a short description of a particular wish of notebook
users. Since kernel 2.2.11 the buffer flushing deamon is no longer
a user space program but part of the kernel (in fs/buffer.c).
Before this kernel release it was the bdflush-program which
could be called with ce
32 matches
Mail list logo
