Re: swsusp is not reliable. Face it. [was Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: swsusp problems]

From: Michael Frank
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 05:27:23 EST

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:59:29 +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:


On Pá 26-03-04 13:59:55, Michael Frank wrote:
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[12] 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.

If swsusp1 panics system, that's a bug. I'm not accepting that one.


Refusing to suspend (I'd call it "fail to suspend") is bad but is not
a bug.

Right, and in case of swsusp2, it generally can be avoided by proper
sizing of swap.

Do we understand each other now?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at