Kernel Summit 2006: Software suspend
Kernel Summit 2006: Software suspend
Posted Jul 18, 2006 10:54 UTC (Tue) by maks (guest, #32426)In reply to: Kernel Summit 2006: Software suspend by bojan
Parent article: Kernel Summit 2006: Software suspend
> I think that's not fair. The in-tree solution doesn't offer many capabilities Suspend2 does.
not unfair - mismanagment needs to be pointed out. It is the workflow of the Linux kernel. Prepare incremental patches that add/fix current implementation.
<snipp unrelated talk about other os>
> What's missing from the in-tree solution is speed, versitility and user friendliness. And that's what Suspend2 is mostly about. Actually, that's what uswsusp is about too, minus the "no setup" bit.
latest gnome has an nice powermanagment frontend for swsusp and no the suspend2 struggles are mostly unrelated to the frontend it uses (unrevied code mass).
swsusp is fast enough for me and works on smp. afaik suspend2 routinely fails on dualcore laptops. swsusp is good, improve it.
nobody needs again 2 in kernel solutions.
Posted Jul 18, 2006 11:40 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (2 responses)
Always good to keep head in the sand ;-)
> afaik suspend2 routinely fails on dualcore laptops
So does swsusp - it's mostly a driver issue. As I can verify on my dual core laptop.
Posted Jul 18, 2006 11:47 UTC (Tue)
by maks (guest, #32426)
[Link] (1 responses)
swsusp works fine here (mem, disk) on x60 once you set an bios sata option to compatible.
The driver issues are the real, good to see work on bluetooth, firewire and so on..
Posted Jul 18, 2006 20:14 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
Apparently, this is the case with Suspend2 as well on this hardware:
http://www.gnugrass.com/personal/x60.html
On my dual core hardware, I can get both working, but only "sort of" for now. Both still have problems with (surprise) various drivers.
Sure, sometimes one solution will work on some hardware and won't on another. But generally speaking, as of recent, both have similar success rates. Which, of course, is no accident - they rely on similar stuff in the kernel to do things.
Posted Jul 18, 2006 21:53 UTC (Tue)
by NCunningham (guest, #6457)
[Link]
Posted Jul 19, 2006 1:12 UTC (Wed)
by lamikr (guest, #2289)
[Link]
Posted Jul 27, 2006 14:19 UTC (Thu)
by rvfh (guest, #31018)
[Link]
swsusp and uswsusp? Isn't that TWO broken in-kernel solutions? I don't care that swsusp and suspend2 SHOULD fail on the same machines:
they don't. Suspend2 is successful where swsusp is NOT. Example: my wife's
laptop. And that's pure FACT, no opinion. And I also don't care that uswsusp COULD do the same as Suspend2,
because for now it does not. Suspend2 is FASTER then Windows and just as
good. As a last note, I remark than Andrew Morton himself does not like the
idea of user-land suspend. So what are they waiting for? A few changes to
the patches? Let them come along, and let's have Suspend2 in the kernel.
QUICK! We're six YEARS late!
> <snipp unrelated talk about other os>Kernel Summit 2006: Software suspend
> So does swsusp - it's mostly a driver issue. As I can verify on my dual core laptop.Kernel Summit 2006: Software suspend
> swsusp works fine here (mem, disk) on x60 once you set an bios sata option to compatible.Kernel Summit 2006: Software suspend
AFAIK, Suspend2 works on any machine swsusp works on - it now uses the Kernel Summit 2006: Software suspend
same lowlevel code, and they both use cpu hotplugging, so if one is
broken, the other should be too.
How about adding suspend2 to kernel now as it is the best thingKernel Summit 2006: Software suspend
currently available. And if there really makes sense to move some
parts of it to userspace, start the progress from there a little by little instead of waiting until swusp gets those features in some years from this day...
> nobody needs again 2 in kernel solutions.
Kernel Summit 2006: Software suspend