On Thursday, 1 March 2007 16:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, 1 March 2007 16:18, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 16:25, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > > >>On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>I... actually do not like that patch. It adds code... at little or no > > >>>benefit. > > >> > > >>We are looking into saving page flags since we are running out. The two > > >>page flags used by software suspend are rarely needed and should be taken > > >>out of the flags. If you can do it a different way then please do. > > > > > > > > > As I have already said for a couple of times, I think we can and I'm going to > > > do it, but right now I'm a bit busy with other things that I consider as more > > > urgent. > > > > I need one bit for lockless pagecache ;) > > > > Anyway, I guess if you want something done you have to do it yourself. > > > > This patch still needs work (and I don't know if it even works, because > > I can't make swsusp resume even on a vanilla kernel). But this is my > > WIP for removing swsusp page flags. > > > > This patch adds a simple extent based nosave region tracker, and > > rearranges some of the snapshot code to be a bit simpler and more > > amenable to having dynamically allocated flags (they aren't actually > > dynamically allocated in this patch, however). > > Thanks for the patch. > > Probably I'd like to do some things in a different way, I'll think about that > later today. > > I hope I'll have a working patch that removes the "offending" page flags after > the weekend. Okay, the next three messages contain patches that should do the trick. They have been tested on x86_64, but not very thoroughly. Greetings, Rafael
