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
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!
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
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).
I think we
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
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
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 deletions are needed
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 could would include
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,
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
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
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
>
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
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 +0200 Rafael J.
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 can get back
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, 2007-04-07 at 15:06
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
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
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
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
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 [EMAIL
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 extents for
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
improve
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:
This should allow
26 matches
Mail list logo
