Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: Suspend2 - Request for review & inclusion in -mm)

Pavel Machek
2006-06-27T22:51:24Z

On Wed 2006-06-28 00:38:59, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 June 2006 00:22, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > uswsusp is a great idea, really.. I love it.. but suspend2 is here, it
> > > > works, it's stable and it's now. Why continue to deprive the mainstream
> > > > of these features because "uswsusp should".. as yet it doesn't.. and
> > > > when it does then we can phase out the currently stable, working
> > > > alternative that has all these features that uswsusp _will_ have, after
> > > > it's had them for a year or so and its been proven stable. Not only
> > > > that, I'll be happy to migrate over to it. Until then however, you can
> > > > pry suspend2.. cold, dead.. blah blah..
> > >
> > > Given the above explanation, it's obvious that I'm an outside watcher
> > > now, but if swsusp2 success rate is clearly higher than the standard
> > > version, then I'd also strongly advocate this direction since, quite
> > > frankly,
> >
> > I do not think suspend2 works on more machines than in-kernel
> > swsusp. Problems are in drivers, and drivers are shared.
> >
> > That means that if you have machine where suspend2 works and swsusp
> > does not, please tell me. I do not think there are many of them.
>
> Maybe not machines, but definitely usage scenarios. I've tried both
> implementations lately, and swsusp would often -- especially under high
> memory load -- just return from trying, while suspend2 succeeds in freeing
> enough memory to be able to suspend _every_ time.

Refrigerator fixes should help with this one. Does it still happen in
2.6.17?

> Is that something uswsusp is likely to change anytime soon?

Actually this is common code for both swsusp and uswsusp; yes this
should be fixed.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html