Prev: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (tile tree related)
Next: Revert adding some arch-specific signal syscalls to <linux/syscalls.h>.
From: Martin Steigerwald on 7 Jun 2010 09:10
Am Montag 07 Juni 2010 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> Hi.

Hi Nigel and Rafael, hi everyone else involved,

> On 07/06/10 05:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday 06 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 15:57 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Sunday 06 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >>> So how TuxOnIce helps here?
> >>
> >> Very simple.
> >>
> >> With swsusp, I can save 750MB (memory) + 250 Vram (vram)
> >> With full memory save I can save (1750 MB of memory) + 250 MB of
> >> vram....
> >
> > So what about being able to save 1600 MB total instead of the 2 GB
> > (which is what we're talking about in case that's not clear)? Would
> > it be _that_ _much_ worse?
>
> That all depends on what is in the 400MB you discard.
>
> The difference is "Just as if you'd never hibernated" vs something
> closer to "Just as if you'd only just started up". We can't make
> categorical statements because it really does depend upon what you
> discard and what you want to do post-resume - that is, how useful the
> memory you discard would have been. That's always going to vary from
> case to case.

Nigel and Rafael, how about just testing it?

Whats needed to have 80% of the memory saved instead of 50%?

I think its important to go the next steps towards a better snapshot in
mainline kernel even when you do not agree on the complete end result yet.

What about

- Rafael, you review the async write patches of Nigel. If they are good,
IMHO they should go in as soon as possible.

- Nigel and/or Rafael, you look at whats needed to save 80% instead of 50%
of the memory and develop a patch for it


?

Then this goes into one stable kernel series and be tested in the wild.
And if that approach does not suffice to give a similar experience than with
TuxOnIce one could still look further. In that case I ask you Rafael, to
at least listen open-mindedly to practical experiences being told and to
ideas to improve the situation.

I really want to see this make some progress instead of getting stuck in
discussion loops again. No offence meant - you do the all the development
work! - but the time spent here IMHO is better spent on reviewing and
furtherly refining the existing patches by Nigel and Jiri and developing a
patchset for the 80% solution which should already help a lot.

Does that incremental approach sound acceptable for the time being?

IMHO *any* step forward helps!

Ciao,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
From: Rafael J. Wysocki on 7 Jun 2010 17:30
On Monday 07 June 2010, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Montag 07 Juni 2010 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > Hi.
>
> Hi Nigel and Rafael, hi everyone else involved,
>
> > On 07/06/10 05:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Sunday 06 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 15:57 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday 06 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>> So how TuxOnIce helps here?
> > >>
> > >> Very simple.
> > >>
> > >> With swsusp, I can save 750MB (memory) + 250 Vram (vram)
> > >> With full memory save I can save (1750 MB of memory) + 250 MB of
> > >> vram....
> > >
> > > So what about being able to save 1600 MB total instead of the 2 GB
> > > (which is what we're talking about in case that's not clear)? Would
> > > it be _that_ _much_ worse?
> >
> > That all depends on what is in the 400MB you discard.
> >
> > The difference is "Just as if you'd never hibernated" vs something
> > closer to "Just as if you'd only just started up". We can't make
> > categorical statements because it really does depend upon what you
> > discard and what you want to do post-resume - that is, how useful the
> > memory you discard would have been. That's always going to vary from
> > case to case.
>
> Nigel and Rafael, how about just testing it?

ISTR that can be done to some extent using TuxOnIce as is, becuase there is a
knob that you can use to limit the image size.

> Whats needed to have 80% of the memory saved instead of 50%?
>
> I think its important to go the next steps towards a better snapshot in
> mainline kernel even when you do not agree on the complete end result yet.
>
> What about
>
> - Rafael, you review the async write patches of Nigel. If they are good,
> IMHO they should go in as soon as possible.

Yes, I'm going to do that.

> - Nigel and/or Rafael, you look at whats needed to save 80% instead of 50%
> of the memory and develop a patch for it

That would be my suggestion as well.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (tile tree related)
Next: Revert adding some arch-specific signal syscalls to <linux/syscalls.h>.