Hi!
> > Okay, so it can be done, and patch does not look too bad. It still
> > scares me. Is 800MB image more responsive than 500MB after resume?
>
> Yes, it is, slightly, but I think 800 meg images are impractical for
> performance reasons (like IMO everything above 500 meg with the current
> hardware). However this means we can save 80% of RAM with the patch
> and that should be 400 meg instead of 250 on a 500 meg machine, or
> 200 meg instead of 125 on a 250 meg machine.
Could we get few people trying it on such small machines to see if it
is really that noticeable?
> > Is benefit worth it?
>
> Well, that depends. I think for boxes with 1 GB of RAM or more it's just
> unnecessary (as of today, but this may change if faster disks are available).
> On boxes with 512 MB of RAM or less it may change a lot as far as the
> responsiveness after resume is concerned.
>
> Anyway do you think it may go into -mm (unless Andrew shoots it down,
> that is ;-))?
I'd really like to hear that it helps someone before going to
-mm. It looks clean enough but still it is 300 lines...
Pavel
--
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
-
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]
