[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101121100328.GA2939@liondog.tnic>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:03:28 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Nigel Cunningham <lkml@...elcunningham.com.au>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: avoid unnecessary smp alternatives switch during
suspend/resume
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 08:27:41PM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We have a few others things that want to modify their behaviour
> according to whether we're doing the atomic copy/restore. Perhaps it
> would be an idea to just use a single flag, perhaps a value for
> system_state?
I agree, it would be nicer if we don't introduce a special flag
just for that. Other than that, I like all sane code that speeds up
suspend/resume :). I've attached before/after dmesg excerpts on my
system with the patch ontop of v2.6.37-rc2-181-gb86db47. We end up
saving 11601 µsecs according to CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME but hey, the code is
simple enough :).
Tested-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
View attachment "suspend.before" of type "text/plain" (1598 bytes)
View attachment "suspend.after" of type "text/plain" (1498 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists