Re: kernel 2.6.32 much slower than 2.6.31 on s2disk

[Willi Mann <foss-ml@wm1.at>]

>> I don't know to how to do a reliable benchmark on this problem, espially as 
>> the required time probably very much depends on the exact state of the 
>> frozen system. Is there any change in 2.6.32 that might cause less memory to 
>> be stored on the suspend device, and thus require more random disk access 
>> after the restore?
> 
> Actaully, yes, there is.
> 
> Please try to increase the value in /sys/power/image_size to approximately
> 1/2 of your RAM and report back (the number is in bytes).

Without changing the image_size, it especially got much better when I
downgraded QT 4.6 to QT 4.5 which does not work well with KDE 4.3 (seems
to cause memleaks).

However, image_size is already set to your recommended value (well,
approximately):

# cat /sys/power/image_size
951431086

My RAM size is 2 GB (however, I have intel graohics with shared mem, so
some part is reserved), my swap size is a little bit more than 2 GB.

I don't know what value image_size was set to when I tried first.

Note that when I reported the issue first I used Debian kernel 2.6.32-1,
(probably plain 2.6.32), while I'm now using Debian kernel 2.6.32-2
(according to the changelog 2.6.32.1)

WM