Hi. On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 15:26 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2009-05-25 15:22:26, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Montag, 25. Mai 2009 14:32:28 schrieb Pavel Machek: > > > > I'm going to try to. Unfortunately, they'll require what's basically a > > > > group-up redesign of the basic algorithm, because to get maximum > > > > reliability, you need to carefully account for the amount of storage > > > > you're going to need and the amount of memory you have available, and > > > > 'prepare' the image prior to doing the atomic copy. > > > > > > I don't quite get it; why is that needed? > > > > > > If there's not enough swap available, swsusp should freeze, realize > > > there's no swap, unfreeze and continue. I do not see reliability > > > problem there. > > > > The software suspend may be a part of your response to an imminent > > power failure (UPS near empty). The number of retries available is possibly > > limited. > > If there's no swap (and no hibernation partition), s2disk just will > not work. Yeah - an argument for not being swap centric in storing the image. But there's more: if there's swap but it's not in the partition pointed to by resume=, swsusp and uswsusp won't work either, will they? That's another reliability issue. > > I'd feel safer if hibernation by default wrote to a dedicated partition, > > especially as modern practice is to make swap space smaller than RAM. > > It would be easy to have dedicated partition. But why waste space on > it? Because it gives you increased reliability. But it doesn't need to be a dedicated partition - you can just have a file on a partition. > Anyway, this debate here is "in what order should we do the swsusp > actions". Dedicated partition/etc is for separate thread (please). Yeah; if we keep this discussion up, we'll get to that issue too. Regards, Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
