lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [TuxOnIce-devel] [linux-pm] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Proposal for a new algorithm for reading & writing a hibernation image.
    Date
    Am Montag 07 Juni 2010 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
    > Hi.

    Hi Nigel and Rafael, hi everyone else involved,

    > On 07/06/10 05:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > > On Sunday 06 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 15:57 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >>> On Sunday 06 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
    > > ...
    > >
    > >>> So how TuxOnIce helps here?
    > >>
    > >> Very simple.
    > >>
    > >> With swsusp, I can save 750MB (memory) + 250 Vram (vram)
    > >> With full memory save I can save (1750 MB of memory) + 250 MB of
    > >> vram....
    > >
    > > So what about being able to save 1600 MB total instead of the 2 GB
    > > (which is what we're talking about in case that's not clear)? Would
    > > it be _that_ _much_ worse?
    >
    > That all depends on what is in the 400MB you discard.
    >
    > The difference is "Just as if you'd never hibernated" vs something
    > closer to "Just as if you'd only just started up". We can't make
    > categorical statements because it really does depend upon what you
    > discard and what you want to do post-resume - that is, how useful the
    > memory you discard would have been. That's always going to vary from
    > case to case.

    Nigel and Rafael, how about just testing it?

    Whats needed to have 80% of the memory saved instead of 50%?

    I think its important to go the next steps towards a better snapshot in
    mainline kernel even when you do not agree on the complete end result yet.

    What about

    - Rafael, you review the async write patches of Nigel. If they are good,
    IMHO they should go in as soon as possible.

    - Nigel and/or Rafael, you look at whats needed to save 80% instead of 50%
    of the memory and develop a patch for it


    ?

    Then this goes into one stable kernel series and be tested in the wild.
    And if that approach does not suffice to give a similar experience than with
    TuxOnIce one could still look further. In that case I ask you Rafael, to
    at least listen open-mindedly to practical experiences being told and to
    ideas to improve the situation.

    I really want to see this make some progress instead of getting stuck in
    discussion loops again. No offence meant - you do the all the development
    work! - but the time spent here IMHO is better spent on reviewing and
    furtherly refining the existing patches by Nigel and Jiri and developing a
    patchset for the 80% solution which should already help a lot.

    Does that incremental approach sound acceptable for the time being?

    IMHO *any* step forward helps!

    Ciao,
    --
    Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
    GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-07 15:11    [W:0.022 / U:91.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site