Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:20:46 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) |
| |
> Hi. > > On Monday 20 February 2006 20:56, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Po 20-02-06 10:47:28, Matthias Hensler wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:53:33AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Only feature I can't do is "save whole pagecache"... and 14000 lines > > > > of code for _that_ is a bit too much. I could probably patch my kernel > > > > to dump pagecache to userspace, but I do not think it is worth the > > > > effort. > > > > > > I do not think that Suspend 2 needs 14000 lines for that, the core is > > > much smaller. But besides, _not_ saving the pagecache is a really _bad_ > > > idea. I expect to have my system back after resume, in the same state I > > > had left it prior to suspend. I really do not like it how it is done by > > > Windows, it is just ugly to have a slowly responding system after > > > resume, because all caches and buffers are gone. > > > > That's okay, swsusp already saves configurable ammount of pagecache. > > Really? How is it configured?
If you want to limit the suspend image size to N bytes, do
echo N > /sys/power/image_size
before suspend (it is limited to 500 MB by default).
Pavel -- Thanks, Sharp! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |