Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934024Ab0FFPyR (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2010 11:54:17 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:24516 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757973Ab0FFPyQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2010 11:54:16 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=K8MOPQZTRsGTv8AiVewDBsOYJYTOlhNCi+t+hjZfD0qwACyh3/4AW5Ge2oaSNjH+KY 5QQaxlrBcPp7+buipYV+88EwpwR/4Nz0d3nOOoILPsgMLoasmbO5qw1MN8mMTGBZRxpb xp8xNuWWBFtttG9iE2S+kfEOrX6VgG3hSMKpc= Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Proposal for a new algorithm for reading & writing a hibernation image. From: Maxim Levitsky To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Nigel Cunningham , pm list , LKML , TuxOnIce-devel In-Reply-To: <201006061557.20482.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <9rpccea67yy402c975fqru8r.1275576653521@email.android.com> <201006052121.45816.rjw@sisk.pl> <1275784828.17835.4.camel@maxim-laptop> <201006061557.20482.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:54:10 +0300 Message-ID: <1275839650.5331.2.camel@maxim-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2944 Lines: 62 On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 15:57 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday 06 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 21:21 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Saturday 05 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > It isn't in fact. > > > > > > > Really saving whole memory makes huge difference. > > > > > > You don't have to save the _whole_ memory to get the same speed (you don't > > > do that anyway, but the amount of data you don't put into the image with > > > TuxOnIce is smaller). Something like 80% would be just sufficient IMO and > > > then (a) the level of complications involved would drop significantly and (2) > > > you'd be able to use the image-reading code already in the kernel without > > > any modifications. It really looks like a win-win to me, doesn't it? > > > > > > Well, in fact on modern systems its not possible to save 100% of ram > > even if we save it all because of video memory. > > Look I got 256MB of video ram, and when compiz is used I say most of it > > is used, and its isn't going to be magically preserved during suspend. > > So system still has to free about 256MB of memory before suspend (which > > means around 80% percent of ram is saved in best case :-) ) > > 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.... Of course save of vram sure can be made non atomic.... Best regards, Maxim Levitsky -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/