Am Montag 07 Juni 2010 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: > Hi. Hi Nigel and Rafael, hi everyone else involved, > On 07/06/10 05:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday 06 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > >> On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 15:57 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Sunday 06 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > ... > > > >>> So how TuxOnIce helps here? > >> > >> Very simple. > >> > >> With swsusp, I can save 750MB (memory) + 250 Vram (vram) > >> With full memory save I can save (1750 MB of memory) + 250 MB of > >> vram.... > > > > So what about being able to save 1600 MB total instead of the 2 GB > > (which is what we're talking about in case that's not clear)? Would > > it be _that_ _much_ worse? > > That all depends on what is in the 400MB you discard. > > The difference is "Just as if you'd never hibernated" vs something > closer to "Just as if you'd only just started up". We can't make > categorical statements because it really does depend upon what you > discard and what you want to do post-resume - that is, how useful the > memory you discard would have been. That's always going to vary from > case to case. Nigel and Rafael, how about just testing it? Whats needed to have 80% of the memory saved instead of 50%? I think its important to go the next steps towards a better snapshot in mainline kernel even when you do not agree on the complete end result yet. What about - Rafael, you review the async write patches of Nigel. If they are good, IMHO they should go in as soon as possible. - Nigel and/or Rafael, you look at whats needed to save 80% instead of 50% of the memory and develop a patch for it ? Then this goes into one stable kernel series and be tested in the wild. And if that approach does not suffice to give a similar experience than with TuxOnIce one could still look further. In that case I ask you Rafael, to at least listen open-mindedly to practical experiences being told and to ideas to improve the situation. I really want to see this make some progress instead of getting stuck in discussion loops again. No offence meant - you do the all the development work! - but the time spent here IMHO is better spent on reviewing and furtherly refining the existing patches by Nigel and Jiri and developing a patchset for the 80% solution which should already help a lot. Does that incremental approach sound acceptable for the time being? IMHO *any* step forward helps! Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
