[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0704271451180.10565@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david.lang@...italinsight.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Back to the future.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 27 April 2007 14:49, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>> I think this is very similar to current uswsusp design; except that we
>> are using read on /dev/snapshot to read the snapshot (not memory
>> mapping) and that we freeze the system
>
> Yes, it seems so.
>
>> (because I do not think killall _SIGSTOP is enough).
>
remember, this is being done inside the kernel. the kernel can do things like
saving off the scheduler queue to prevent any userspace from running during the
snapshot, it could then move selected pids over to a new queue to selectivly
'unfreeze' whatever you need (like the X processes for example) and then proceed
normally (allowing processes to be spawned, forked, etc without activiating the
rest of userspace becouse the rest just won't be available to be scheduled) and
userspace can tell the kernel the list of pids to unfreeze so the kernel doesn't
need to try and guess.
David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists