Re: [linux-pm] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Proposal for a new algorithm for reading & writing a hibernation image.

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

On Saturday 05 June 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi again.
> 
> As I think about this more, I reckon we could run into problems at 
> resume time with reloading the image. Even if some bits aren't modified 
> as we're writing the image, they still might need to be atomically 
> restored. If we make the atomic restore part too small, we might not be 
> able to do that.
> 
> So perhaps the best thing would be to stick with the way TuxOnIce splits 
> the image at the moment (page cache / process pages vs 'rest'), but 
> using this faulting mechanism to ensure we do get all the pages that are 
> changed while writing the first part of the image.

I still don't quite understand why you insist on saving the page cache data
upfront and re-using the memory occupied by them for another purpose.  If you
dropped that requirement, I'd really have much less of a problem with the
TuxOnIce's approach.

Rafael