![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
I honestly don't see OOMing as an acceptable practice. If I wanted to kill a bunch of stuff just to suspend, I would have simply shut the system down. That isn't my intent or desire. I want to suspend the system just as it is without OOMing a bunch of programs. David Pavel Machek wrote: >Hi! > > > >>>From: Martin J. Bligh [mailto:mbligh@aracnet.com] >>>Can't you just create a pre-reserved separate swsusp area on >>>disk the size >>>of RAM (maybe a partition rather than a file to make things >>>easier), and >>>then you know you're safe (basically what Marc was >>>suggesting, except pre-allocated)? Or does that make me the >>>prince of all evil? ;-) >>> >>>However much swap space you allocate, it can always all be >>>used, so that seems futile ... >>> >>> >>This is what Other OSes do, and I believe this is the correct path. >>Using swap for swsusp is a clever hack but not a 100% solution. >> >> > >Well, for normal use its clearly inferior -- suspend partition is unused >when it could be used for speeding system up by swapping out unused >stuff. > >OtherOS approach is better because it can guarantee suspend-to-disk >for critical situations like overheat or battery-critical. > >But we can get best of both worlds if we OOM-kill during critical >suspend. [If suspend partition was not used for swapping, machine >would *already* OOM-killed someone, so we are only improving stuff]. > > Pavel > > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:34 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||