linux-kernel - Re: When will the lunacy end? (Was Re: [PATCH] uswsusp: add pmops->{prepare,enter,finish} support (aka "platform mode"))

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:56:55 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...uxmail.org>,
	Stefan Seyfried <seife@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: When will the lunacy end? (Was Re: [PATCH] uswsusp: add pmops->{prepare,enter,finish} support (aka "platform mode"))

On Tuesday, 26 September 2006 00:45, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Mon 2006-09-25 14:45:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:34:03 +1000
> > Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...uxmail.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > </rant>
> > 
> > metoo!  I'd suggest that it'd be better to be expending the grey cells on
> > making the present suspend stuff nice and solid, stable and fast.
> 
> [Un?]fortunately, Novell has some suggestions how I should expend my
> grey cells in this area.
> 
> Anyway you want:
> 
> nice)
> 	not sure if me + Rafael can do much here. Perhaps someone else
> 	has to go through the code and rewrite it one more time? Or do
> 	you have specific areas where suspend is really ugly?
> 
> solid)
> 	apart from HIGHMEM64G fiasco, and related agpgart fiasco long
> 	time before that... these are driver problems...
> 
> stable)
> 	I believe we are doing pretty well in this area. We did not
> 	have too many regressions, did we? (And notice that nice+fast
> 	are actually both conflicting goals with stable).
> 
> fast)
> 	frankly, that is not my priority for in-kernel
> 	suspend. uswsusp will always be few seconds faster, thanks to
> 	LZW. If we do 40MB/sec or 50MB/sec during write is not that
> 	important. Patches are always welcome.

Actually, swsusp with the speed-up patches requires quite a lot of RAM to
write to disk asynchronously.  This effectively means that on my box the image
size should not exceed 3/8 of the total RAM size, or the synchronous writing
will start due to the lack of memory.

uswsusp doesn't seem to have this problem.

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
		R. Buckminster Fuller
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/