linux-kernel - Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [linux-pm] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Proposal for a new algorithm for reading & writing a hibernation image.

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]

Message-Id: <201006071507.56259.Martin@lichtvoll.de>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:07:49 +0200
From:	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
To:	tuxonice-devel@...ts.tuxonice.net
Cc:	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	"TuxOnIce-devel" <tuxonice-devel@...onice.net>
Subject: Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [linux-pm] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Proposal for a new algorithm for reading & writing a hibernation image.

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

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)