Re: does swsusp suck after resume for you? [was Re: Faster resuming of suspend technology.]

[Con Kolivas]

On Wednesday 15 March 2006 05:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday 13 March 2006 13:03, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > @@ -269,5 +270,6 @@ int swsusp_resume(void)
> >  	touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> >  	device_power_up();
> >  	local_irq_enable();
> > +	post_resume_swap_prefetch();
> >  	return error;
> >  }
>
> Hm, this code is only executed if there's an error during resume.  You
> should have placed the post_resume_swap_prefetch() call in
> swsusp_suspend(). :-)

Gee you guys are fussy. You want the code to actually do what it's advertised 
to do?

Anyway perhaps it was ordinary swap prefetch that was making the difference 
after all. I think I'll let the current swap prefetch code settle for a while 
before touching this just yet.

Cheers,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/