From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] swsusp: support creating bigger images Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:04:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20060425100408.GF4789@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200604242355.08111.rjw@sisk.pl> <20060424221632.GQ3386@elf.ucw.cz> <200604251026.53613.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============74408609477411458==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200604251026.53613.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Nigel Cunningham , Linux PM , LKML List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --===============74408609477411458== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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. --===============74408609477411458== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --===============74408609477411458==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932173AbWDYKEu (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:04:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932174AbWDYKEu (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:04:50 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:64150 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932173AbWDYKEu (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:04:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:04:09 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM , LKML , Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] swsusp: support creating bigger images Message-ID: <20060425100408.GF4789@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200604242355.08111.rjw@sisk.pl> <20060424221632.GQ3386@elf.ucw.cz> <200604251026.53613.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200604251026.53613.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.