Re: kernel 2.6.32 much slower than 2.6.31 on s2disk

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Monday 28 December 2009, Willi Mann wrote:
> 
> >> 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)

So, is it still a problem for you?

Rafael