From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 1/5] swsusp: Introduce memory bitmaps Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 14:11:59 +0200 Message-ID: <200608091411.59696.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200608091152.49094.rjw@sisk.pl> <200608091336.17137.rjw@sisk.pl> <20060809115335.GA3747@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060809115335.GA3747@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: LKML , Linux PM List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 09 August 2006 13:53, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2006-08-09 13:36:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wednesday 09 August 2006 13:27, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > Introduce the memory bitmap data structure and make swsusp use in the suspend > > > > > > phase. > > > > > > > > > > > > The current swsusp's internal data structure is not very efficient from the > > > > > > memory usage point of view, so it seems reasonable to replace it with a data > > > > > > structure that will require less memory, such as a pair of bitmaps. > > > > > > > > > > Well, 500 lines of code for what... 0.25% bigger image? > > > > BTW, that depends on the total size of RAM. On a 1.5 GB i386 box that would > > be something like 100%. > > Well, well, but 99.75% of that is from 3/5 patch, and we could still > get those 99.75% without bitmaps, right? Yes. I meant the total gain from all of the changes. [The highmem one would be quite difficult without bitmaps, I think, because the bitmaps give us the right ordering of pages automatically.] Rafael