Re: does swsusp suck after resume for you? [was Re: Faster resuming of suspend technology.]

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Monday 13 March 2006 13:03, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 13 March 2006 22:36, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 4) Congratulations, you are right person to help. Could you test if
> > Con's patches help?
> 
> Ok this patch is only compile tested only but is reasonably straight forward.
> (I have no hardware to test it on atm). It relies on the previous 4 patches I
> sent out that update swap prefetch. To make it easier here is a single rolled
> up patch that goes on top of 2.6.16-rc6-mm1:
> 
> http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/swap-prefetch/2.6.16-rc6-mm1-swap_prefetch_suspend_test.patch
> 
> Otherwise the incremental patch is below.
> 
> Usual blowing up warnings apply with this sort of patch. If it works well then
> /proc/meminfo should show a very large SwapCached value after resume.
> 
}-- snip --{
> Index: linux-2.6.16-rc6-mm1/kernel/power/swsusp.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.16-rc6-mm1.orig/kernel/power/swsusp.c	2006-03-13 10:05:05.000000000 +1100
> +++ linux-2.6.16-rc6-mm1/kernel/power/swsusp.c	2006-03-13 22:42:52.000000000 +1100
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@
>  #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>  #include <linux/syscalls.h>
>  #include <linux/highmem.h>
> +#include <linux/swap-prefetch.h>
>  
>  #include "power.h"
>  
> @@ -269,5 +270,6 @@ int swsusp_resume(void)
>  	touch_softlockup_watchdog();
>  	device_power_up();
>  	local_irq_enable();
> +	post_resume_swap_prefetch();
>  	return error;
>  }

Hm, this code is only executed if there's an error during resume.  You should
have placed the post_resume_swap_prefetch() call in swsusp_suspend(). :-)

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/