From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: [RFC 09/15] PM / Hibernate: user, implement user_ops writer Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:54:44 +1100 Message-ID: <4BB3C4A4.9080809@crca.org.au> References: <1269361063-3341-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> <201003302303.12758.rjw@sisk.pl> <4BB2B3E5.7020708@crca.org.au> <201003312225.25085.rjw@sisk.pl> <4BB3B95A.5000901@crca.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BB3B95A.5000901@crca.org.au> 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: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jiri Slaby List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi. On 01/04/10 08:06, Nigel Cunningham wrote: >>>>> Wouldn't it also increase the memory requirements? >>>> >>>> Not really, or just a little bit (the size of the buffer). I'm talking about >>>> the image that's created atomically after we've frozen devices. >>> >>> The buffer would be the size of the compressed image. >> >> Not necessarily if the image is compressed in chunks. According to >> measurements I did some time ago, 256 KiB chunks were sufficient. > > I must be missing something. You're talking about doing compression of > the image during the atomic copy, right? If that's the case, where do > the 256KiB chunks come in? Ah, we're talking about different things. I wasn't thinking about the size of buffers for compression, but instead where this compressed image would be stored (leading into the 1/6th extra below). Regards, Nigel