From: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@cyclades.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
Cc: Stefan Seyfried <seife@suse.de>,
ck@vds.kolivas.org, Jun OKAJIMA <okajima@digitalinfra.co.jp>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: does swsusp suck aftre resume for you? [was Re: Re: Faster resuming of suspend technology.]
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:32:09 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200603160732.15627.ncunningham@cyclades.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060315175948.GB2423@ucw.cz>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1194 bytes --]
Hi.
On Thursday 16 March 2006 03:59, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 15-03-06 11:37:11, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:36:31PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Yes, I can do mem=128M... but then, I'd prefer not to code workarounds
> > > for machines noone uses any more.
> >
> > I have machines that cannot be upgraded to more than 192MB and would
> > like to continue using them :-)
>
> Good :-).
>
> > > 3) Does it still suck after setting image_size to high value (no =>
> > > good, we have simple fix)
> >
> > no matter how high you set image_size, it will never be bigger than
> > ~64MB on a 128MB machine, or i have gotten something seriously wrong.
>
> No, you are right, but maybe 64MB image is enough to get acceptable
> interactivity after resume? I'd like you to check it.
>
> (It will probably suck. In such case, testing Con's patch would be
> nice -- after trivial fix rafael pointed out).
If you could also test suspend2, that would be good. I've gained some renewed
motivation for getting it merged, and hearing that it still does better than
swsusp + extras would be helpful in building the case for it.
Regards,
Nigel
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-15 21:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-10 17:04 Faster resuming of suspend technology Jun OKAJIMA
2006-03-11 7:22 ` Nigel Cunningham
2006-03-11 12:17 ` Jun OKAJIMA
2006-03-11 12:46 ` Nigel Cunningham
2006-03-12 9:26 ` Jun OKAJIMA
2006-03-12 17:54 ` Jim Crilly
2006-03-12 23:06 ` Nigel Cunningham
2006-03-20 12:45 ` Jun OKAJIMA
2006-03-21 11:33 ` Fwd: " Jun OKAJIMA
2006-03-27 23:57 ` Jun OKAJIMA
2006-03-28 0:28 ` Nigel Cunningham
2006-03-28 12:48 ` [Xen-devel] " Keir Fraser
2006-03-12 21:32 ` Andreas Mohr
2006-03-12 22:30 ` [ck] " Con Kolivas
2006-03-13 1:43 ` Nigel Cunningham
2006-03-13 10:12 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-13 11:10 ` Nigel Cunningham
2006-03-14 10:32 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-13 10:06 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-13 10:35 ` [ck] " Con Kolivas
2006-03-13 10:43 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-13 11:13 ` Andreas Mohr
2006-03-13 11:36 ` does swsusp suck aftre resume for you? [was Re: [ck] Re: Faster resuming of suspend technology.] Pavel Machek
2006-03-13 12:03 ` does swsusp suck after resume for you? [was " Con Kolivas
2006-03-14 5:13 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-14 8:24 ` Andreas Mohr
2006-03-14 11:51 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-14 12:33 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-14 12:43 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-14 17:36 ` Lee Revell
2006-03-14 21:34 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-14 18:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2006-03-14 21:45 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-15 10:37 ` does swsusp suck aftre resume for you? [was " Stefan Seyfried
2006-03-15 17:59 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-15 21:32 ` Nigel Cunningham [this message]
2006-03-16 10:33 ` does swsusp suck after resume for you? Con Kolivas
2006-03-16 10:46 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-16 10:47 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-16 10:50 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-16 21:33 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-16 21:44 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-16 22:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2006-03-17 4:28 ` [PATCH] swsusp reclaim tweaks was: " Con Kolivas
2006-03-17 4:46 ` [ck] " Con Kolivas
2006-03-17 6:17 ` [PATCH] swsusp reclaim tweaks 2 Con Kolivas
2006-03-17 17:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2006-03-18 4:14 ` [PATCH][RFC] mm: swsusp shrink_all_memory tweaks Con Kolivas
2006-03-18 4:41 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-18 4:46 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-18 4:52 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-18 4:56 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-18 5:44 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-18 6:14 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-18 8:30 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-18 9:40 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-16 10:55 ` [ck] Re: does swsusp suck after resume for you? Andreas Mohr
2006-03-17 5:23 ` 2.6.16-rc6: swsusp cannot find swap partition Mark Lord
2006-03-17 5:34 ` Mark Lord
2006-03-16 11:31 ` [ck] Re: does swsusp suck after resume for you? Con Kolivas
2006-03-16 2:20 ` swsusp_suspend continues? Con Kolivas
2006-03-16 9:19 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-16 16:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200603160732.15627.ncunningham@cyclades.com \
--to=ncunningham@cyclades.com \
--cc=ck@vds.kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=okajima@digitalinfra.co.jp \
--cc=pavel@suse.cz \
--cc=seife@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox