From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751605AbWF1WYe (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:24:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751606AbWF1WYe (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:24:34 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:44244 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751604AbWF1WYd (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:24:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:24:17 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Sebastian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCgler?= Cc: suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net, Andreas Mohr , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: Suspend2 - Request for review & inclusion in -mm) Message-ID: <20060628222417.GA27526@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200606270147.16501.ncunningham@linuxmail.org> <200606280118.23270.sebas@kde.org> <20060628195316.GB18039@elf.ucw.cz> <200606290019.17298.sebas@kde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200606290019.17298.sebas@kde.org> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > Okay, can I get some details? Like how much memory does system have, > > what stress test causes the failure? > > The machine has 1GB of RAM, filling it up beyond 500MB, maybe 600MB usually > made swsusp a problem. I'd need to close apps then to be able to > suspend. I'm pretty sure I do suspending with most of RAM full. You have big-enough swap partition, right? > Using suspend2 fixes that for me. I can even decide how much memory I want > suspended, the rest will be reliably discarded. I did a benchmark on two > similar machines swsusp: would take 45 seconds until resume (that's about the > same time it takes it to boot normally) suspend2 would take 25 seconds (and > have warm caches as a bonus). Not having a progress indicator also doesn't > really help. Set console loglevel (see Doc*/power/swsusp.txt), and you should get some progress. But yes, swsusp is slow; uswsusp should be about the same speed as suspend2. > Another thing I really like about suspend2 is that I can easily set it up so > it goes into S3 after writing the image. It would resume much faster then, > and in case it runs out of battery, I can still 'normally' resume from disk. > That's incredibly useful, especially since not all devices are known to > completely switch off during S3, and resuming from S3 is generally known to > cause problems. I've yet to see suspend2 failing though. > Is such a disk-backed hibernate also possible with (u)swsusp? We call it s2both and yes, it is supported. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html