Re: swsusp with highmem, testing wanted

[Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>]

Hi!

> On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 10:59, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > I also think we free too much memory btw (and spend too much time
> > > trying to free memory). Have you looked at some of Nigel stuffs in
> > > swsusp2 ? There may be good ideas to borrow... 
> > 
> > Yes, swsusp2 is faster. It is also 10x more code. We could probably
> > stop freeing as soon as half of memory is free; OTOH if memory is
> > disk cache, it might be faster to drop it than write to swap, then
> > read back [swsusp2 shows its not usually the case, through].
> 
> 10x more code is true, but we also need to ask, how much of that is more
> functionality? How much is debugging code (that can be removed)? How
> much is comments?

Do you think you could strip down features + debugging etc so that
swsusp2 is only, say, 3x bigger than swsusp1? It would certainly make
merging easier.

> 10x implies there's needless bloat and that the two are otherwise
> equivalent. That's simply not true.

If I implied that I should appologize. (Sorry.) swsusp2 *has* more
features, many of them make it faster.
								Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]