Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: does swsusp suck after resume for you? | Date | Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:15:09 +0100 |
| |
On Thursday 16 March 2006 22:33, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > > The tunable in /proc/sys/vm/swap_prefetch is now bitwise ORed: > > > > > Thus if you set this value > > > > > to 3 it will prefetch aggressively and then drop back to the default > > > > > of 1. This makes it easy to simply set the aggressive flag once and > > > > > forget about it. I've booted and tested this feature and it's working > > > > > nicely. Where exactly you'd set this in your resume scripts I'm not > > > > > sure. A rolled up patch against 2.6.16-rc6-mm1 is here for > > > > > simplicity: > > correct url: > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/swap-prefetch/2.6.16-rc6-mm1-swap_prefetch_test.patch > > > > 2 means aggressively prefetch as much as possible and then disable swap > > > prefetching from that point on. Too confusing? > > > > Ahha... oops, yes, clever; no, I guess keep it. > > Ok the patch works fine for me and the feature is worthwhile in absolute terms > as well as for improving resume. > > Pavel, while we're talking about improving behaviour after resume I had a look > at the mechanism used to free up ram before suspending and I can see scope > for some changes in the vm code that would improve the behaviour after > resuming. Is the mechanism used to free up ram going to continue being used > with uswsusp?
Yes.
> If so, I'd like to have a go at improving the free up ram vm > code to make it behave nicer after resume. I have some ideas about how best > to free up ram differently from normal reclaim which would improve behaviour > post resume.
That sounds really good to me. :-)
Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |