Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Suspend2 merge: 1/51: Device trees | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Date | Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:52:28 +1100 |
| |
Hi.
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 09:41, Pavel Machek wrote: > > I thought I wrote - perhaps I'm wrong here - that I understand that your > > new work in this area might make this unnecessary. I really only want to > > do it this way because I don't know what other drivers might be doing > > while we're writing the LRU pages. I'm not worried about them touching > > LRU. What I am worried about is them allocating memory and starving > > suspend so that we get hangs due to being oom. If they're suspended, we > > have more certainty as to how memory is being used. I don't remember > > what prompted me to do this in the first place, but I'm pretty sure it > > would have been a real observed issue. > > Uh... It seems like quite a lot of work. Would not reserving few more > pages help here? Or perhaps right solution is to fix "broken" drivers > that need too much memory...
I'd agree, except that I don't know how many to allocate. It makes getting a reliable suspend the result of guess work and favourable circumstances. Fixing 'broken' drivers by really suspending them seems to me to be the right solution. Make their memory requirements perfectly predictable.
Regards,
Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Pastoral Worker Christian Reformed Church of Tuggeranong PO Box 1004, Tuggeranong, ACT 2901
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. -- Romans 5:6
- 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/
| |