[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201006052045.19889.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:45:19 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"TuxOnIce-devel" <tuxonice-devel@...onice.net>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Proposal for a new algorithm
for reading & writing a hibernation image.
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
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists