Hi,
On Thursday 02 February 2006 10:38, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Its limitation , however, is that it requires a lot of memory for the system
> > memory snapshot which may be impractical for systems with limited RAM,
> > and that's where your solution may be required.
>
> Actually, suspend2 has similar limitation. It still needs half a
> memory free, but it does not count caches into that as it can save
> them separately.
I didn't know that. [If that is the case, I wonder what Nigel means by
the "whole memory image". Nigel?]
> That means that on certain small systems (32MB RAM?), suspend2 is going to
> have big advantage of responsivity after resume. But on the systems
> where [u]swsusp can't suspend (6MB RAM?), suspend2 is not going to be
> able to suspend, either. [Roughly; due to bugs and implementation
> differences there may be some system size where one works and second
> one does not, but they are pretty similar]
Generally speaking, my perception is that suspend2 may be preferrable below
256 MB of RAM. Moreover there are some people who seem to prefer
entirely kernel-based suspend, and I'm not going to develop the code
in swap.c and disk.c any further (of course with the exception of bugfixes
etc.). Nigel has done it already so perhaps there is a room for his code,
too, _provided_ _that_ it is accepted.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
