Re: does swsusp suck after resume for you?

[Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>]

> On Thursday 16 March 2006 04:59, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > (It will probably suck. In such case, testing Con's patch would be
> > nice -- after trivial fix rafael pointed out).
> 
> Ok here's a patch I've booted and tested with a modification to swap prefetch
>  that others might find useful, not just swsusp.
> 
> The tunable in /proc/sys/vm/swap_prefetch is now bitwise ORed:
> 1	= Normal background swap prefetching when load is light
> 2	= Aggressively swap prefetch as much as possible
> 
> And once the "aggressive" bit is set it will prefetch as much as it can and
>  then disable the aggressive bit. 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:
> http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/swap-prefetch/2.6.16-rc6-mm1-swap_prefetch_suspend_test.patch
> 
> and the incremental on top of the 4 patches pending for the next -mm is below.
> 
> Comments and testers most welcome.

Looks okay, but... what happens if I set /proc/sys/vm/swap_prefetch to
"2"? Do nothing but do it agresively?

Maybe having 0 = off, 1 = normal, 2 = aggressive would be less error
prone for the users.

									Pavel

-- 
Thanks, Sharp!
-
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/