lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: does swsusp suck after resume for you?
Date
> > > > 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? 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.

Cheers,
Con
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-16 22:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans