Re: [linux-pm] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Proposal for a new algorithmfor reading & writing a hibernation image.

[Maxim Levitsky]

On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 20:45 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: 
> 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.
Because its the biggest advantage?
Really saving whole memory makes huge difference.


Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky

--
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/