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
