lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync()
From
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 May 2015, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 May 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > My current view on that is that whether or not to do a sync() before suspending
>> > ultimately is a policy decision and should belong to user space as such (modulo
>> > the autosleep situation when user space may not know when the suspend is going
>> > to happen).
>> >
>> > Moreover, user space is free to do as many sync()s before suspending as it
>> > wants to and the question here is whether or not the *kernel* should sync()
>> > in the suspend code path.
>> >
>> > Since we pretty much can demonstrate that having just one sync() in there is
>> > not sufficient in general, should we put two of them in there? Or just
>> > remove the existing one and leave it to user space entirely?
>>
>> I don't know about the advantages of one sync over two. But how about
>> adding a "syncs_before_suspend" (or just "syncs") sysfs attribute that
>> takes a small numeric value? The default can be 0, and the user could
>> set it to 1 or 2 (or higher).
>
> IMO it would be much safer to both have that knob, and to set it to keep the
> current behavior as the default. Userspace will adapt and change that knob
> to whatever is sufficient based on what it does before signaling the kernel
> to suspend.
>
> A regression in sync-before-suspend is sure to cause data loss episodes,
> after all. And, as far as bikeshedding goes, IMHO syncs_before_suspend is
> self-explanatory, which would be a very good reason to use it instead of the
> shorter requires-you-to-know-what-it-is-about "syncs".
>

When I first thought about this, I had a similar view:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/23/45

But upon reflection, I do not believe that the kernel is adding value here,
instead it is imposing a policy, and that policy decision is sometimes
prohibitively expensive.
User-space can do this for itself (and in the case of desktop distros,
already does),
and so the kernel should butt-out.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-11 22:41    [W:0.132 / U:5.892 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site