On Saturday 05 June 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi again. > > As I think about this more, I reckon we could run into problems at > resume time with reloading the image. Even if some bits aren't modified > as we're writing the image, they still might need to be atomically > restored. If we make the atomic restore part too small, we might not be > able to do that. > > So perhaps the best thing would be to stick with the way TuxOnIce splits > the image at the moment (page cache / process pages vs 'rest'), but > using this faulting mechanism to ensure we do get all the pages that are > changed while writing the first part of the image. I still don't quite understand why you insist on saving the page cache data upfront and re-using the memory occupied by them for another purpose. If you dropped that requirement, I'd really have much less of a problem with the TuxOnIce's approach. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
