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

Maxim Levitsky
2010-06-05T19:10:35Z

On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 20:45 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.
Because its the biggest advantage?
Really saving whole memory makes huge difference.

Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky