Re: [patch] x86: avoid unnecessary smp alternatives switch duringsuspend/resume
From: Pavel Machek
Date: Sun Jan 02 2011 - 04:11:50 EST
> > We have a few others things that want to modify their behaviour
> > according to whether we're doing the atomic copy/restore. Perhaps it
> > would be an idea to just use a single flag, perhaps a value for
> > system_state?
> I agree, it would be nicer if we don't introduce a special flag
> just for that. Other than that, I like all sane code that speeds up
> suspend/resume :). I've attached before/after dmesg excerpts on my
> system with the patch ontop of v2.6.37-rc2-181-gb86db47. We end up
> saving 11601 ??secs according to CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME but hey, the code is
> simple enough :).
11msec is not worth the uglyness of global variable like this. Should
we get a parameter, or something?
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/