From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PM: HIBERNATION: skip the swap size check if the snapshot image size is anticipative Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 22:46:34 +0100 Message-ID: <201201092246.35170.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1322208422-12346-1-git-send-email-Barry.Song@csr.com> <201201082231.44510.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> Cc: Xiangzhen Ye , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, workgroup.linux@csr.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Barry Song , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday, January 09, 2012, Barry Song wrote: > 2012/1/9 Rafael J. Wysocki : > > On Friday, January 06, 2012, Barry Song wrote: > >> 2012/1/6 Pavel Machek : > >> > Hi! > >> > > >> > Is the check even useful these days? Should we remove it altogether? > >> > >> i think we can let users or distributions decide whether it is useful. > >> On PC, disk space is not an issue, people might run many applications > >> while doing hibernation, so snapshot is much big. an early check will > >> improve user experience because people don't need to wait a long time > >> and find space is not enough. > >> for embedded system, SoC solutions can know whether the space is > >> enough since they know what are running while doing hibernation, so > >> they can skip the check by setting the flag in sysfs. > >> that is why i had this patch sent. > > > > I agree with Pavel that it's better to drop the check altogether. > > > > The sysfs switch you're adding doesn't seem to be very useful, as PC > > users won't touch it and whoever needs it to be 0, will always set it > > that way and won't change it afterwards. > > ok. if we don't have the check, in case swap partition is not enough, > writing failure will happen, system still can restore to normal > status: > > for example, in the following test, only 27% data is written with a > small partition, "Restarting tasks ... done" will make system restore > to normal status. > > [ 11.2080 27% > [ 11.403274] PM: Wrote uncompressed 34920 kbytes in 0.65 seconds (53.72 MB/s) > [ 11.407649] PM: Wrote compressed 3500 kbytes in 0.65 seconds (5.38 MB/s) > [ 11.447176] Restarting tasks ... done. > [ 11.448801] ... That's exactly correct. Thanks, Rafael