On Monday, 9 April 2007 14:39, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > Some time ago we discussed the possibility of simplifying the swsusp's
> > > > approach
> > > > towards tracking the swap pages allocated by it for saving the image
> > > > (so that
> > > > they can be freed if there's an error).
Hi!
> > > Some time ago we discussed the possibility of simplifying the swsusp's
> > > approach
> > > towards tracking the swap pages allocated by it for saving the image (so
> > > that
> > > they can be freed if there's an error).
> > >
> > > I think we can get back to it now, as it is a nice
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 15:03 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 April 2007 23:07, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> [--snip--]
> > > > Normal usage in both cases is simply iterating through the list, so I
> > > > guess the cost would be approximately the same.
> > > >
> > > > Deletion coul
On Sunday, 8 April 2007 23:07, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
[--snip--]
> > > Normal usage in both cases is simply iterating through the list, so I
> > > guess the cost would be approximately the same.
> > >
> > > Deletion could would include rebalancing for the rb_nodes.
> >
> > In swsusp the deletion
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 18:47 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 April 2007 01:42, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 01:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 8 April 2007 00:31, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 20
On Sunday, 8 April 2007 14:56, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Some time ago we discussed the possibility of simplifying the swsusp's
> > approach
> > towards tracking the swap pages allocated by it for saving the image (so
> > that
> > they can be freed if there's an error).
> >
> > I think we
On Sunday, 8 April 2007 01:42, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 01:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, 8 April 2007 00:31, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:20:39
Hi!
> Some time ago we discussed the possibility of simplifying the swsusp's
> approach
> towards tracking the swap pages allocated by it for saving the image (so that
> they can be freed if there's an error).
>
> I think we can get back to it now, as it is a nice optimization that should
> allo
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 01:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 April 2007 00:31, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:20:39 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> >
On Sunday, 8 April 2007 00:31, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:20:39 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This should allow us to reduce the memory usage, practically always, and
> >
Hi.
On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:20:39 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > This should allow us to reduce the memory usage, practically always, and
> > improve performance.
>
> And does it?
It will. I've been using ext
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:20:39 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This should allow us to reduce the memory usage, practically always, and
> improve performance.
And does it?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EM
Hi,
Some time ago we discussed the possibility of simplifying the swsusp's approach
towards tracking the swap pages allocated by it for saving the image (so that
they can be freed if there's an error).
I think we can get back to it now, as it is a nice optimization that should
allow us to use les
13 matches
Mail list logo
