Re: kernel 2.6.32 much slower than 2.6.31 on s2disk

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

 



>> I don't know to how to do a reliable benchmark on this problem, espially as 
>> the required time probably very much depends on the exact state of the 
>> frozen system. Is there any change in 2.6.32 that might cause less memory to 
>> be stored on the suspend device, and thus require more random disk access 
>> after the restore?
> 
> Actaully, yes, there is.
> 
> Please try to increase the value in /sys/power/image_size to approximately
> 1/2 of your RAM and report back (the number is in bytes).

Without changing the image_size, it especially got much better when I
downgraded QT 4.6 to QT 4.5 which does not work well with KDE 4.3 (seems
to cause memleaks).

However, image_size is already set to your recommended value (well,
approximately):

# cat /sys/power/image_size
951431086

My RAM size is 2 GB (however, I have intel graohics with shared mem, so
some part is reserved), my swap size is a little bit more than 2 GB.

I don't know what value image_size was set to when I tried first.

Note that when I reported the issue first I used Debian kernel 2.6.32-1,
(probably plain 2.6.32), while I'm now using Debian kernel 2.6.32-2
(according to the changelog 2.6.32.1)

WM
_______________________________________________
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