On Thursday, 5 July 2007 00:52, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Thursday 05 July 2007 08:49:42 Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Thu 2007-07-05 08:48:15, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > On Thursday 05 July 2007 00:58:58 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > The syncing of filesystems from within the freezer in not needed for > suspend > > > to > > > > RAM. Change freeze_processes() so that it doesn't execute sys_sync() > and > > > > introduce the "syncing" version of it to be called from the hibernation > code > > > > paths. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > include/linux/freezer.h | 14 ++++++++++++-- > > > > kernel/power/disk.c | 2 +- > > > > kernel/power/main.c | 6 ++++++ > > > > kernel/power/process.c | 8 +++++--- > > > > kernel/power/user.c | 2 +- > > > > 5 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > Looks ok, except that I wonder if you want the following fragment. It > looks to > > > me (looking at rc6) like with this code, you'll currently call sys_sync > twice > > > when suspending to ram. Maybe I'm misreading it. Also, shouldn't it be > done > > > after taking the mutex? > > > > sys_sync() should be okay to call, mutex or not. > > Yeah. That wasn't my point, sorry. Calling sys_sync is pointless if you're > going to fail to take the mutex. It makes more sense to know you've got it > before you start doing things related to actually suspending. Well, that's a valid point, I'll move it under the mutex. And why do you think it will be called twice? Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
