Hi. On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 00:35 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, 14 April 2007 00:10, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > Well, it looks like someone allocated about 6000 pages after we had freed > > > > > enough memory for suspending. > > > > > > > > We have a tunable allowance in Suspend2 for this, because fglrx > > > > allocates a lot of pages in its suspend routine if DRI is enabled. I > > > > think some other drivers do too, but fglrx is the main one I know. > > > > > > I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the information. > > > > > > I think this means we'll probably need to add a tunable, similar to image_size, > > > that will allow the users to specify how much spare memory they want to reserve > > > for suspending (instead of the constant PAGES_FOR_IO). IMO we can call it > > > 'spare_memory'. > > > > Just increase PAGES_FOR_IO. This should not be tunable. > > Well, I'm not sure. First, we don't really know what the value of it should be > and this alone is a good enough reason for making it tunable, IMHO. Second, I > think different systems may need different PAGES_FOR_IO and taking just the > maximum (even if we learn how much that actually is) seems to be wasteful in > the vast majority of cases. Finally, I think it may be possible to speed up > image saving by increasing PAGES_FOR_IO without playing with the > image size and we can let the user try it (think of distro kernels that are > compiled for many different users). It does vary according to the amount of video memory used for DRM, if I understand correctly. Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
