Re: Suspend2 merge: 1/51: Device trees

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@linuxmail.org>]

Hi.

On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 09:41, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > I thought I wrote - perhaps I'm wrong here - that I understand that your
> > new work in this area might make this unnecessary. I really only want to
> > do it this way because I don't know what other drivers might be doing
> > while we're writing the LRU pages. I'm not worried about them touching
> > LRU. What I am worried about is them allocating memory and starving
> > suspend so that we get hangs due to being oom. If they're suspended, we
> > have more certainty as to how memory is being used. I don't remember
> > what prompted me to do this in the first place, but I'm pretty sure it
> > would have been a real observed issue.
> 
> Uh... It seems like quite a lot of work. Would not reserving few more
> pages help here? Or perhaps right solution is to fix "broken" drivers
> that need too much memory...

I'd agree, except that I don't know how many to allocate. It makes
getting a reliable suspend the result of guess work and favourable
circumstances. Fixing 'broken' drivers by really suspending them seems
to me to be the right solution. Make their memory requirements perfectly
predictable.

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
Nigel Cunningham
Pastoral Worker
Christian Reformed Church of Tuggeranong
PO Box 1004, Tuggeranong, ACT 2901

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ
died for the ungodly.		-- Romans 5:6