Re: When will the lunacy end? (Was Re: [PATCH] uswsusp: add pmops->{prepare,enter,finish} support (aka "platform mode"))

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Tuesday, 26 September 2006 00:45, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Mon 2006-09-25 14:45:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:34:03 +1000
> > Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > </rant>
> > 
> > metoo!  I'd suggest that it'd be better to be expending the grey cells on
> > making the present suspend stuff nice and solid, stable and fast.
> 
> [Un?]fortunately, Novell has some suggestions how I should expend my
> grey cells in this area.
> 
> Anyway you want:
> 
> nice)
> 	not sure if me + Rafael can do much here. Perhaps someone else
> 	has to go through the code and rewrite it one more time? Or do
> 	you have specific areas where suspend is really ugly?
> 
> solid)
> 	apart from HIGHMEM64G fiasco, and related agpgart fiasco long
> 	time before that... these are driver problems...
> 
> stable)
> 	I believe we are doing pretty well in this area. We did not
> 	have too many regressions, did we? (And notice that nice+fast
> 	are actually both conflicting goals with stable).
> 
> fast)
> 	frankly, that is not my priority for in-kernel
> 	suspend. uswsusp will always be few seconds faster, thanks to
> 	LZW. If we do 40MB/sec or 50MB/sec during write is not that
> 	important. Patches are always welcome.

Actually, swsusp with the speed-up patches requires quite a lot of RAM to
write to disk asynchronously.  This effectively means that on my box the image
size should not exceed 3/8 of the total RAM size, or the synchronous writing
will start due to the lack of memory.

uswsusp doesn't seem to have this problem.

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
		R. Buckminster Fuller