On Thursday 30 March 2006 22:38, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 31 March 2006 03:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > OK, I have the following observations:
>
> Thanks.
> >
> > 1) The patch generally causes more memory to be freed during suspend than
> > the unpatched code (good).
>
> Yes I know you meant less, that's good.
>
> > 2) However, if more than 50% of RAM is used by application data, it causes
> > the swap prefetch to trigger during resume (that's an impression; anyway
> > the system swaps in a lot at that time), which takes some time (generally
> > it makes resume 5-10s longer on my box).
>
> Is that with this "swsusp shrink_all_memory tweaks" patch alone? It doesn't
> touch swap prefetch.
Still swap prefetch is present in -mm so it can be triggered incidentally
I think.
> > 3) The problem with returning zero prematurely has not been entirely
> > eliminated. It's happened for me only once, though.
>
> Probably hard to say, but is the system in any better state after resume has
> completed?
It seems so, but it also depends on the (actual) image size, memory usage
before suspend etc. Well ...
> That was one of the aims. Also a major part of this patch is a cleanup of
> the hot balance_pgdat function as well, which suspend no longer touches with
> this patch.
I think the patch is a good idea overall, but it needs some more testing.
I'll try to figure out a way to measure its performance, so we have some
hard data to discuss.
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]
