3 ms·

This seems to be a similar approach to the one taken by Windows[0] There were a causes for the poor resume time, but a large contributor was device resume time

This seems to be a similar approach to the one taken by Windows[0] There were a causes for the poor resume time, but a large contributor was device resume time. Since the OS serialized S0 IRPs to all devices in the PnP tree, the time for each device to resume added sequentially to the system's resume time. The OS serialization of the S0 IRPs could not change for Windows XP, so the problem was attacked at the other end...each driver would complete the S0 IRP as fast as it could so the OS could resume quickly and then asynchronously power up the device. This way each device could power up in parallel and the total time to power up was not sequential (nor was it only the longest of any device to power up since there is still ordering between parent and child devices) and resume time could be dramatically slower. [0]http://blogs.msdn.com/b/doronh/archive/2007/10/15/fast-resume-and-how-if-affects-your-driver.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/doronh/archive/2007/10/15/fast-resum...

praseodym 13y ago
And that was for Windows XP, 13 years ago...
- danford 13y ago
  I switched from XP to Ubuntu about 6 years ago. At the time I was running an old dell laptop that had been shipped with XP. Perhaps their concept is similar, but my resume time in Ubuntu was a lot faster than that of XP. Perhaps they had the right idea but didn't execute it perfectly, hopefully the Linux devs will get it right. I'm impressed by the resume times in windows 7 on faster computers but on more budget systems Linux still seems to be the king of resume times and performance (at least in my experience). I've only used windows 8 on an employees laptop and from what I can tell, it wasn't made to perform well on his Toshiba to say the least. I've seen both windows 7 and windows 8 running very well, much better than linux, on the right hardware though. The performance of windows on budget hardware (75% of consumer) is mediocre at best, which is unfortunate, but what's even more unfortunate is that because a select few can get Windows performing amazingly on great hardware, the consumer market seems to think it runs amazingly everywhere. Hopefully soon it will, or people will come to their senses and realize installing windows on a low budget (average consumer grade) system is more trouble than it's worth.

praseodym 13y ago

And that was for Windows XP, 13 years ago...

danford 13y ago
I switched from XP to Ubuntu about 6 years ago. At the time I was running an old dell laptop that had been shipped with XP. Perhaps their concept is similar, but my resume time in Ubuntu was a lot faster than that of XP. Perhaps they had the right idea but didn't execute it perfectly, hopefully the Linux devs will get it right. I'm impressed by the resume times in windows 7 on faster computers but on more budget systems Linux still seems to be the king of resume times and performance (at least in my experience). I've only used windows 8 on an employees laptop and from what I can tell, it wasn't made to perform well on his Toshiba to say the least. I've seen both windows 7 and windows 8 running very well, much better than linux, on the right hardware though. The performance of windows on budget hardware (75% of consumer) is mediocre at best, which is unfortunate, but what's even more unfortunate is that because a select few can get Windows performing amazingly on great hardware, the consumer market seems to think it runs amazingly everywhere. Hopefully soon it will, or people will come to their senses and realize installing windows on a low budget (average consumer grade) system is more trouble than it's worth.