From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: kernel 2.6.32 much slower than 2.6.31 on s2disk
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:56:27 +0100
Message-ID: <200912272156.27174.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <hgb0q7$u8a$1@ger.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <hgb0q7$u8a$1@ger.gmane.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm>,
	<mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm>,
	<mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Willi Mann <foss-ml@wm1.at>, linux-pm@lists.osdl.org
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday 16 December 2009, Willi Mann wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> It seems to me that kernel 2.6.32 takes much longer to restore the system 
> into a really responsive state, despite the fact that s2disk seems to finish 
> much faster. 
> 
> 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).

Rafael