On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 12:23 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > once that tracer bug was fixed, the best method to generate a trace > > was to do this: > > > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/stackframe_tracing > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/syscall_tracing > > ./trace-cmd bash -c "echo mem > /sys/power/state" > trace.txt > > so here's an UP suspend+resume trace i did: > > http://redhat.com/~mingo/latency-tracing-patches/misc/trace-suspend-long.txt.bz2 > > tons of detail - which might be interesting to other folks as well. Fact > is, our suspend-to-RAM+resume cycle is very, very slow, even on fast > hardware - and this trace shows all the reasons why. > > This was a fully cached system - i.e. i've done a suspend+resume before > to warm up the caches. (not that suspend+resume does much IO normally.) > > The trace shows that a suspend+resume cycle is 7.95 seconds long > (without counting the time the box spent suspended) - ouch! This was a > T60 with Core2Duo 1.83GHz. Ouch? That's an order of magnitude faster than my 3GHz P4 :) -Mike _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
