Hello, Phillip. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 03:55:30PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote: > > What kind of use cases are we expecting for the lazy behavior? > > Not all systems only have a single drive. There may be a tendency for > IO to the drive with the root fs on it after a resume, but multi drive > systems often end up not touching the other disks so they go back into > suspend shortly after resume, so the start/stop cycle was just > needless wear and tear on the drive. The problem is that the relevance of lazy behavior moves together with the frequency of suspend/resume cycles. So, it's something which could be useful for machines with multiple rotating disks which suspend and resume frequently? It's a hard sell. If it can be done trivially, and I really mean "trivially", maybe. If it involves almost any level of complexity, I'd be highly reluctant to apply the changes. Its usefulness is not only marginal now, but it'll also continue to fall rather rapidly. Adding maintenance overhead for that seems rather ill advised to me. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
