Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:49:24 +1000 From: "Andrew Reilly" <areilly@nsw.bigpond.net.au> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Andrew Reilly <areilly@nsw.bigpond.net.au>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.freebsd.org>, bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE, acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org, dcs@newsguy.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ACPI project progress report Message-ID: <20000620104924.A52825@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <20000619173055.A16200@orion.ac.hmc.edu>; from brooks@one-eyed-alien.net on Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:30:55PM -0700 References: <20000620085531.A38839@gurney.reilly.home> <200006191630.KAA60652@harmony.village.org> <45525.961432574@critter.freebsd.dk> <20000620085531.A38839@gurney.reilly.home> <200006192301.RAA63461@harmony.village.org> <20000620101608.A38965@gurney.reilly.home> <20000619173055.A16200@orion.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:30:55PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:16:08AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote: > > (*) Speaking of which: why are we considering doing process > > dumps into a _different_ swap-ish partition, instead of just > > ensuring that all processes are sleeping in the normal swap > > partition? If that was done, then they would just page > > themselves back in as needed, on wake-up. > > Because swap doesn't work that way anymore. They days where every page of > memory had to be backed by disk are long gone. This means that there may > not be anywere to put processes which are in memory unless you allocate > somewhere to save all (or practicaly all) of memory. But to do the proposed state save to disk, there _must_ be enough disk space to back all of the process pages. > In any case, I > haven't seen many laptops capable of using more then 256MB of RAM which > isn't exactly much of a modern disk. My laptop has 256MB of RAM and > ships with up to a 10GB disk. I've retrofitted it with a non-standard > 18GB disk because 10GB looked too small for my needs. Even with the 6.4GB > disk it shipped with, the suspend to disk partition is only 4% of my disk. The issue isn't with the size of the disk storage required, but with the mechanism. Why dedicate 256M to a suspend partition, and invent a new process saving mechanism, instead of making your existing swap partition 256M larger and using the existing swap pager? Processes do still wind up in "sleep" state, completely paged out, don't they? -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000620104924.A52825>