From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 19 18: 7:11 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from orion.ac.hmc.edu (Orion.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE1237B8E5; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:07:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brdavis@orion.ac.hmc.edu) Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by orion.ac.hmc.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA20250; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:00:03 -0700 From: Brooks Davis To: Andrew Reilly Cc: Brooks Davis , Warner Losh , Poul-Henning Kamp , Mitsuru IWASAKI , 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: <20000619180003.A15754@orion.ac.hmc.edu> 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> <20000620104924.A52825@gurney.reilly.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre4i In-Reply-To: <20000620104924.A52825@gurney.reilly.home>; from areilly@nsw.bigpond.net.au on Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:49:24AM +1000 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:49:24AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote: > 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? Because our swapper doesn't work that way. Generally speaking, swappers don't work that way anymore. Systems that suspend to disk are a corner case for FreeBSD. > Processes do still wind up in "sleep" state, completely paged > out, don't they? Observationaly, no. Unless I actually manage to run my system low on RAM, none of my swap is used even with ~5MB Eterm processes sitting unused for days. I suppose if I let memory get tight, they might get ditched in favor of disk cache, but I haven't seen that happen. Someone with a better grasp of the VM could give a more preciese answer. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message