lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
Date
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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-03 23:21    [W:0.202 / U:9.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site