[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:0.036 / U:0.144 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site