From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Hu, Fenghua" <fenghua.hu@intel.com>,
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:41:25 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46D4DCD5.4030601@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1188180997.3247.68.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 09:28 +0800, Hu, Fenghua wrote:
>
>>One quick question is, can it improve hiberation/wakeup time?
>
>
> In general, for kexec based hibernation, what increases
> hibernation/wakeup time:
>
> - One extra Linux boot is needed to hibernate and wakeup.
>
>
> What decreases hibernation/wakeup time:
>
> - Most hibernation/wakeup work is done in full functional user space
> program, so it is possible to do some optimization, such as parallel
> compression.
- It does not have to reclaim pagecache before suspend?
- It does not have to restore working set afterwards?
(You could do this to reduce image size, of course, but it can
be optional which is nice).
> So, I think the kexec based hibernation may be slower than original
> implementation in general. In this prototype implementation, the
> hibernation/wakeup time is much longer than original hibernation/wakeup
> implementation. But it has much to be optimized and I think it can
> approach the speed of the original implementation after optimization.
Also, don't just look at the time to do a simple suspend/resume cycle,
but the full cost of going from working state to working state (eg.
grep a kernel tree or two!).
Although the kexec details are out of my league, I really like
everything about the concept :) Nice work.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:41:25 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46D4DCD5.4030601@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1188180997.3247.68.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 09:28 +0800, Hu, Fenghua wrote:
>
>>One quick question is, can it improve hiberation/wakeup time?
>
>
> In general, for kexec based hibernation, what increases
> hibernation/wakeup time:
>
> - One extra Linux boot is needed to hibernate and wakeup.
>
>
> What decreases hibernation/wakeup time:
>
> - Most hibernation/wakeup work is done in full functional user space
> program, so it is possible to do some optimization, such as parallel
> compression.
- It does not have to reclaim pagecache before suspend?
- It does not have to restore working set afterwards?
(You could do this to reduce image size, of course, but it can
be optional which is nice).
> So, I think the kexec based hibernation may be slower than original
> implementation in general. In this prototype implementation, the
> hibernation/wakeup time is much longer than original hibernation/wakeup
> implementation. But it has much to be optimized and I think it can
> approach the speed of the original implementation after optimization.
Also, don't just look at the time to do a simple suspend/resume cycle,
but the full cost of going from working state to working state (eg.
grep a kernel tree or two!).
Although the kexec details are out of my league, I really like
everything about the concept :) Nice work.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: "Hu, Fenghua" <fenghua.hu@intel.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
nigel@nigel.suspend2.net,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@cmu.edu>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:41:25 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46D4DCD5.4030601@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1188180997.3247.68.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 09:28 +0800, Hu, Fenghua wrote:
>
>>One quick question is, can it improve hiberation/wakeup time?
>
>
> In general, for kexec based hibernation, what increases
> hibernation/wakeup time:
>
> - One extra Linux boot is needed to hibernate and wakeup.
>
>
> What decreases hibernation/wakeup time:
>
> - Most hibernation/wakeup work is done in full functional user space
> program, so it is possible to do some optimization, such as parallel
> compression.
- It does not have to reclaim pagecache before suspend?
- It does not have to restore working set afterwards?
(You could do this to reduce image size, of course, but it can
be optional which is nice).
> So, I think the kexec based hibernation may be slower than original
> implementation in general. In this prototype implementation, the
> hibernation/wakeup time is much longer than original hibernation/wakeup
> implementation. But it has much to be optimized and I think it can
> approach the speed of the original implementation after optimization.
Also, don't just look at the time to do a simple suspend/resume cycle,
but the full cost of going from working state to working state (eg.
grep a kernel tree or two!).
Although the kexec details are out of my league, I really like
everything about the concept :) Nice work.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-29 2:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-27 1:14 [RFC][PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation Huang, Ying
2007-08-27 1:14 ` Huang, Ying
2007-08-27 1:28 ` Hu, Fenghua
2007-08-27 1:28 ` [linux-pm] " Hu, Fenghua
2007-08-27 2:16 ` Huang, Ying
2007-08-27 2:16 ` [linux-pm] " Huang, Ying
2007-08-27 2:16 ` Huang, Ying
2007-08-27 2:19 ` Hu, Fenghua
2007-08-27 2:19 ` Hu, Fenghua
2007-08-29 2:41 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2007-08-29 2:41 ` [linux-pm] " Nick Piggin
2007-08-29 2:41 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-27 5:00 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-08-27 5:00 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-08-27 6:18 ` Huang, Ying
2007-08-27 6:18 ` Huang, Ying
2007-08-27 6:46 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-08-27 6:46 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-08-27 6:46 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-08-27 7:53 ` Pavel Machek
2007-08-27 7:53 ` Pavel Machek
2007-08-27 13:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-08-27 13:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-08-27 13:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-08-27 13:15 ` Pavel Machek
2007-08-27 13:15 ` Pavel Machek
2007-08-27 13:15 ` Pavel Machek
2007-08-28 1:24 ` Huang, Ying
2007-08-28 1:24 ` Huang, Ying
2007-08-27 7:53 ` Pavel Machek
2007-08-27 6:18 ` Huang, Ying
2007-08-27 5:00 ` Vivek Goyal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46D4DCD5.4030601@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=fenghua.hu@intel.com \
--cc=jbms@cmu.edu \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=nigel@nigel.suspend2.net \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.