On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> [asinha@ankur-laptop ~]$ sudo journalctl --no-pager --since="2013-12-10 00:01" | egrep "systemd" | egrep "suspend|resume" >> Dec 10 08:27:00 ankur-laptop systemd-sleep[20600]: System resumed. >> Dec 10 08:46:35 ankur-laptop systemd-udevd[159]: unknown key '\nSYMLINK' in /etc/udev/rules.d/99-resume.rules:1 >> Dec 10 08:46:35 ankur-laptop systemd-udevd[159]: invalid rule '/etc/udev/rules.d/99-resume.rules:1' >> Dec 10 09:14:01 ankur-laptop systemd-udevd[160]: unknown key '\nSYMLINK' in /etc/udev/rules.d/99-resume.rules:1 >> Dec 10 09:14:01 ankur-laptop systemd-udevd[160]: invalid rule '/etc/udev/rules.d/99-resume.rules:1' >> Dec 10 09:16:42 ankur-laptop systemd-sleep[2495]: System resumed. >> Dec 10 09:19:51 ankur-laptop systemd-udevd[159]: unknown key '\nSYMLINK' in /etc/udev/rules.d/99-resume.rules:1 >> Dec 10 09:19:51 ankur-laptop systemd-udevd[159]: invalid rule '/etc/udev/rules.d/99-resume.rules:1' >> Dec 10 09:22:30 ankur-laptop systemd-sleep[2466]: System resumed. >> Dec 10 09:23:20 ankur-laptop systemd-sleep[2855]: System resumed. >> Dec 11 08:12:57 ankur-laptop systemd-sleep[21685]: System resumed. >> Dec 11 08:17:56 ankur-laptop systemd-udevd[159]: unknown key '\nSYMLINK' in /etc/udev/rules.d/99-resume.rules:1 >> Dec 11 08:17:56 ankur-laptop systemd-udevd[159]: invalid rule '/etc/udev/rules.d/99-resume.rules:1' >> [asinha@ankur-laptop ~]$ > > There is no /etc/udev/rules.d/99-resume.rules file: >From reading the systemd devel list my understanding is that udev rules only apply when hardware appears or disappears, but not on suspend/resume. So if the device in question, which ought to be the device rootfs is on, is going away and returning on suspend/resume then udev applies. Otherwise it's the kernel that needs to restore state on resume. You might look at 'udevadm monitor' before and after suspending. Also I'm confused about systemd reporting suspend when the computer indicates it's definitely not asleep. It's hibernated. And anaconda's partition code for suggested swap for hibernate support, isn't being employed (apparently at all for anyone). On my laptops, suggested swap is always the same as RAM. But the anaconda swap code for hibernation says it should be anywhere from 3x memory (for small amounts of RAM) up to 1.5x memory if you have gobs of it, for my two laptops the code suggests it should be 2x memory but suggested swap as computed by anaconda isn't 2x. I have to manually create swaps of that size. > > At the moment, I can only think of downgrading systemd as a way to confirm it's the culprit here. Check systemd devel list, thread "udev rule not applied after resume from sleep" and see if that's related. Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
