Hi! > > > And the thing is, that "swsusp_shrink_memory()" is just full of > > > heuristics. There's no hard numbers there. It doesn't seem to wait for > > > writeout, it just does the equivalent of "shrink_list()" and > > > "shrink_slab()", but it seems to have been basically cribbed half-way > > > from the regular "try to free memory", without really doing it all. > > > > akpm designed shrink_memory(). Long time ago it was just while (1) > > kmalloc() loop. It should be waiting. Andrew? > > I always wanted the thing to just allocate all the memory which it > needed and then to either return it all to the caller or free it all > again for the caller to reallocate (preferably the former). We need half of memory free for swsusp to work. If we "just allocate" it, we will trigger OOM killer; we'd prefer to fail suspend than to OOM kill. > But for some reason which I don't recall (Pavel provided it, iirc) > that Alas, I do not remember that clearly. > doesn't work. So the current (and subsequently tweaked) scheme was put > in there instead. It turned out to be surprisingly difficult and ugly > to graft it in top of the existing page reclaim code, and various > changes were subsequently made to make it sort-of-work. > > Remind me: why can't we just allocate N pages at suspend-time? We need half of memory free. The reason we can't "just allocate" is probably OOM killer; but my memories are quite weak :-(. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
