[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: swsusp is not reliable. Face it. [was Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: swsusp problems]

> > swsusp1 fails your test, swsusp2 fails your test, and pmdisk fails it,
> > too. If half of memory is used by kmalloc(), there's no sane way to
> > make suspend-to-disk working. And swsusp[12] does not. Granted, half
> > of memory kmalloc-ed is unusual situation, but it can theoreticaly
> > happen. Try mem=8M or something.
> Of course if you do have 8M memory, you're not going to care about
> suspending to disk anyway :>. Note too that suspend2 will eat memory
> until it can suspend. It doesn't livelock because it grabs the memory it
> frees immediately and if it can't free enough, it gives up and exits
> cleanly. You'll know almost instantly if your suspend is going to
> succeed or fail: once you start seeing the image written, the only thing
> that will stop it is media/hardware failure or user intervention.

Yep, swsusp2 will

a) either fail and exit cleanly

b) or suspend to disk and powerdown

. And that's correct behaviour. Michael apparently wants suspend that
always suspends, and never refuses, but not even swsusp2 can do
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.089 / U:3.316 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site