From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932161AbWGKWB3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:01:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932172AbWGKWB2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:01:28 -0400 Received: from pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.125]:45001 "HELO pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932161AbWGKWB1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:01:27 -0400 From: Nigel Cunningham To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability] Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:01:19 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Pavel Machek , suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net, Olivier Galibert , grundig , Avuton Olrich , jan@rychter.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060627133321.GB3019@elf.ucw.cz> <200607112245.11462.ncunningham@linuxmail.org> <200607112354.56078.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <200607112354.56078.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1921069.iL5TM7Y7Ua"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200607120801.24239.ncunningham@linuxmail.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --nextPart1921069.iL5TM7Y7Ua Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi. On Wednesday 12 July 2006 07:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday 11 July 2006 14:45, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > On Sunday 09 July 2006 04:52, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Well, I tried really hard to justify the patch that allowed swsusp to > > > create bigger images and 10% was the greatest speedup I could get out > > > of it and, let me repeat, _with_ compression and async I/O. I tried = to > > > simulate different workloads etc., but I couldn't get more than 10% > > > speedup (the biggest image I got was as big as 80% of RAM) - counting > > > the time from issuing the suspend command to getting back _responsive_ > > > system after resume. > > > > Was that 10% speedup on suspend or resume, or both? With LZF, I see > > approximately double the speed with both reading and writing: > > I was not referring to the speedup of writing and/or reading. > > The exercise was to measure the time needed to suspend the system and get > it back in a responsive state. I measured the time elapsed between > triggering the suspend and the moment at which I could switch between some > applications in X without any noticeable lag due to faulting in some pages > (that is a bit subjective, I must admit, but I was willing to show that > bigger images make substantial difference). > > I tested uswsusp with compression (LZF) and two image sizes: 120 MB and > (IIRC) about 220 MB on a 256 MB box. The result of the measurement for t= he > 120 MB image has always been greater than for the 220 MB image, but the > difference has never been greater than 10%. Ah ok. Are you sure you're getting that sort of throughput with LZF though = =2D=20 if you're not, you might be underestimating the advantage. Regards, Nigel =2D-=20 Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia --nextPart1921069.iL5TM7Y7Ua Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEtB+0N0y+n1M3mo0RAkcwAKC+FFH5/TcNF4VERv0d65iB3EdzNwCdFHaS aEMUdZUfWrxIyl6ulHIOwvQ= =JZkT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1921069.iL5TM7Y7Ua--