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

[Michael Frank]

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

> Hi!
>
> 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
> > >>linux?
> > >>
> > >>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.

OK,

> 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?

Yes

Michael
-
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/