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
12 matches
Mail list logo
