Re: swsusp is not reliable. Face it. [was Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: swsusp problems]
From: Michael Frank
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 01:08:58 EST
You forgot to leave the header ;)
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:13:48 +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
Suspend is a mechanism to suspend the system transparently and
_NOT_EVER_ impairing the system. There can be NO_COMPROMISE and
NO_EXCUSE. I walk out of my office suspending the machine and resuming it
in front of my client it can't ever fail, or am I an idiot to advocate
If I would be willing to accept failure I would not spend my time here and
utilize M$'s incarnation of an architectural idiocy.
You are wrong.
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 does not. Granted, half
of memory kmalloc-ed is unusual situation, but it can theoreticaly
happen. Try mem=8M or something.
No, I am not!
mem=8M won't boot into a usable system. mem=~11M will not suspend and
swsusp2 will exit gracefully and this is tested.
So swsusp2 does _not_ fail. You still have a usable system instead of a
paniced system you seem to like to accept.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/