Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation

Nick Piggin
2007-08-29T02:41:25Z

Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 09:28 +0800, Hu, Fenghua wrote:
>
>>One quick question is, can it improve hiberation/wakeup time?
>
>
> In general, for kexec based hibernation, what increases
> hibernation/wakeup time:
>
> - One extra Linux boot is needed to hibernate and wakeup.
>
>
> What decreases hibernation/wakeup time:
>
> - Most hibernation/wakeup work is done in full functional user space
> program, so it is possible to do some optimization, such as parallel
> compression.

- It does not have to reclaim pagecache before suspend?

- It does not have to restore working set afterwards?

(You could do this to reduce image size, of course, but it can
be optional which is nice).

> So, I think the kexec based hibernation may be slower than original
> implementation in general. In this prototype implementation, the
> hibernation/wakeup time is much longer than original hibernation/wakeup
> implementation. But it has much to be optimized and I think it can
> approach the speed of the original implementation after optimization.

Also, don't just look at the time to do a simple suspend/resume cycle,
but the full cost of going from working state to working state (eg.
grep a kernel tree or two!).

Although the kexec details are out of my league, I really like
everything about the concept :) Nice work.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.