Re: Fix SWSUSP & !SWAP

[David Ford <david+cert@blue-labs.org>]

I honestly don't see OOMing as an acceptable practice.  If I wanted to 
kill a bunch of stuff just to suspend, I would have simply shut the 
system down.  That isn't my intent or desire.  I want to suspend the 
system just as it is without OOMing a bunch of programs.

David

Pavel Machek wrote:

>Hi!
>
>  
>
>>>From: Martin J. Bligh [mailto:mbligh@aracnet.com] 
>>>Can't you just create a pre-reserved separate swsusp area on 
>>>disk the size 
>>>of RAM (maybe a partition rather than a file to make things 
>>>easier), and 
>>>then you know you're safe (basically what Marc was 
>>>suggesting, except pre-allocated)? Or does that make me the 
>>>prince of all evil? ;-)
>>>
>>>However much swap space you allocate, it can always all be 
>>>used, so that seems futile ...
>>>      
>>>
>>This is what Other OSes do, and I believe this is the correct path.
>>Using swap for swsusp is a clever hack but not a 100% solution.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, for normal use its clearly inferior -- suspend partition is unused
>when it could be used for speeding system up by swapping out unused
>stuff.
>
>OtherOS approach is better because it can guarantee suspend-to-disk
>for critical situations like overheat or battery-critical.
>
>But we can get best of both worlds if we OOM-kill during critical
>suspend. [If suspend partition was not used for swapping, machine
>would *already* OOM-killed someone, so we are only improving stuff].
>
>						Pavel  
>
>  
>