From: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@clear.net.nz>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Ducrot Bruno <ducrot@poupinou.org>,
"Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ACPI List <acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Swsusp <swsusp@lister.fornax.hu>
Subject: Re: [ACPI] Re: [PATCH] s4bios for 2.5.59 + apci-20030123
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:42:13 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1044819732.1815.25.camel@laptop-linux.cunninghams> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030207160055.GA485@elf.ucw.cz>
Hi
On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 05:00, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 1 2 3 4 5
> > --
> > 1 1 25655/30592 1562 0:07
> > 1 2 26246/30592 4302 0:05
>
> You can suspend and resume your notebook within 5 seconds? Wow!
As requested, these were just the times for suspending.
> Well, if all the memory is in disk-backed clean pages, it should be
> faster to discard then write out...
Yes, I would think so too. Perhaps the differences would probably
disappear if I made the algorithm more like your original (ie simplifed
eat_memory back to the original), but I do remember lots of disk
activity when using the original code as well - perhaps the cause might
be worth further investigation? (Not that I'm volunteering)
> Anyway... So your method is faster. Good. Now, how much more
> complicated is it?
As I've said above, I'm not sure it is right to say it is faster - I
didn't compare your current method with the new one, but rather mine
with parameters making the algorithm as close to yours as possible. My
point was more that if the new method is slower, its not significantly
slower.
Nevertheless, you do have a good point - it is more complicated. But I
think it's worth it and its not a lot more complicated. People who are
using the new method at the moment appreciate the changes. Don't think
for a moment that I don't value your work, Pavel. I couldn't have done
any of my additions without it and consider mine tweaking. This has
simply been a quest to get a more responsive system on resume.
Regards,
Nigel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-09 19:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-04 1:25 [PATCH] s4bios for 2.5.59 + apci-20030123 Grover, Andrew
2003-02-04 22:10 ` Pavel Machek
2003-02-05 20:05 ` [ACPI] " Ducrot Bruno
2003-02-05 20:41 ` Nigel Cunningham
2003-02-06 10:16 ` Ducrot Bruno
2003-02-06 19:41 ` Nigel Cunningham
2003-02-06 21:05 ` Ducrot Bruno
2003-02-07 3:57 ` Nigel Cunningham
2003-02-07 16:00 ` Pavel Machek
2003-02-09 19:42 ` Nigel Cunningham [this message]
2003-02-06 15:37 ` Pavel Machek
2003-02-06 19:44 ` Nigel Cunningham
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1044819732.1815.25.camel@laptop-linux.cunninghams \
--to=ncunningham@clear.net.nz \
--cc=acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=andrew.grover@intel.com \
--cc=ducrot@poupinou.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=swsusp@lister.fornax.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).