Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Huang, Ying wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 09:28 +0800, Hu, Fenghua wrote:

One quick question is, can it improve hiberation/wakeup time?


In general, for kexec based hibernation, what increases
hibernation/wakeup time:

- One extra Linux boot is needed to hibernate and wakeup.


What decreases hibernation/wakeup time:

- Most hibernation/wakeup work is done in full functional user space
program, so it is possible to do some optimization, such as parallel
compression.

- It does not have to reclaim pagecache before suspend?

- It does not have to restore working set afterwards?

(You could do this to reduce image size, of course, but it can
be optional which is nice).


So, I think the kexec based hibernation may be slower than original
implementation in general. In this prototype implementation, the
hibernation/wakeup time is much longer than original hibernation/wakeup
implementation. But it has much to be optimized and I think it can
approach the speed of the original implementation after optimization.

Also, don't just look at the time to do a simple suspend/resume cycle,
but the full cost of going from working state to working state (eg.
grep a kernel tree or two!).

Although the kexec details are out of my league, I really like
everything about the concept :) Nice work.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux