On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Dan Williams wrote: > >> > The only thing which is a bit concerning is that this doesn't have any >> > throttling mechanism for simultaneous wakeups. Would this be able to >> > blow up the PSU if used on a machine with a lot of spindles? >> >> Good point. The primary benefit is completing userspace resume >> without needlessly waiting for the disk. For now I think it would be >> enough to have a mutex to maintain one disk at a time. We can follow >> on later with something more complex to enable a max simultaneous >> spin-up tunable. > > Why? The existing code doesn't have anything like that. > Why follow up later, or why maintain one disk at a time? I know at least the SCSI driver I maintained had this as a per-low-level driver tunable. Seems to be a good candidate for attempting a unified platform-level tunable. Mind you I would not be looking to implement it anytime soon. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
