Hi. On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 07:29 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > I absolutely detest all suspend-to-disk crap. Quite frankly, I hate > > > the whole thing. I think they've _all_ caused problems for the "true" > > > suspend (suspend-to-ram), and the last thing I want to see is three or > > > four different suspend-to-disk implementations. So unlike Ingo, I > > > don't think "let's just integrate them all side-by-side and maintain > > > them and look who wins" is really a good idea. > > > > > > How many different magic ioctl's does the thing introduce? Is it > > > really just *two* entry-points (and how simple are they, > > > interface-wise), and nothing else? > > > > userspace-driven-suspend is already in the kernel, today. So it's not > > really "two versions side by side doing the same thing", but more of: > > > > A B C + D E F G H > > > > where "ABC" is used by the uswsusp code today, and "ABCDEFGH" is used by > > suspend2. So any "suspend2 merge" would largely be about adding "DEFGH". > > Actually, we have 'D H' in kernel, today. It is called swsusp... > (Encryption, swapFile support and Graphical progress are missing from > today's kernel.) Along with a lot of other things (see my "Reasons to merge Suspend2" email from earlier in the day). > > My original mail was about the following thing: i tried the suspend2 > > patch (which just makes "echo disk > /sys/power/state" work as expected, > > as long as you give the booting up kernel image an idea about where the > > ..and it means that 'echo disk > ...' should work w/o suspend2 patch, > too. (Just try it). You'll miss compression part, but that provides > only small speedup. Please don't spread misinformation to support your case. LZF compression (which is what all Suspend2 users use AFAIK) generally doubles the speed of your cycle. Nigel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy
- From: Christian Hesse <[email protected]>
- Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy
- Prev by Date: Re: [OOPS] 2.6.21-rc6-git5 in cfq_dispatch_insert
- Next by Date: Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
- Previous by thread: Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
- Next by thread: Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
- Index(es):