lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync()
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015, Pavel Machek wrote:

> > well, that depends on what the purpose of the sync is supposed to be.
> >
> > If it is there to prevent users from corrupting their filesystems as a result
> > of a mistake, it is insufficient. If it's there for other reasons, I'm wondering
> > what those reasons are (on systems that suspend and resume reliably, because the
> > original reason to put it in there was to reduce the damage from suspend/resume
> > crashes).
>
> I put it there, and there were more reasons than "crashes" to put it
> there.
>
> 1) crashes.
>
> 2) battery is quite likely to run out in suspended machine.
>
> 3) if someone pulls the stick and puts it in other machine, I wanted
> consistent filesystem at least after journal replay.

I was going to make the same points.

From my point of view, whether to issue a sync is a tradeoff. I can't
remember any time in the last several years where lack of a sync would
have caused a problem for my computers, but the possibility still
exists.

So on one hand, issuing the sync can help prevent a low-probability
problem. On the other hand, issuing the sync takes a small amount of
time (negligible for my purposes but not negligible for Len and
others).

I prefer to pay a very small cost to prevent a low-probability problem.
Others may not want to pay, because to them the cost is larger or the
probability is lower.

_That_ is the justification for not eliminating the sync completely but
making it optional.

Alan Stern



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-08 17:01    [W:0.655 / U:0.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site