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

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Tue Sep 26 2006 - 15:54:28 EST

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.


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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at