[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200704280308.54398.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:08:53 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Back to the future.
On Saturday, 28 April 2007 03:00, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 05:18:16PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> > Then you could use kexec for resume...
>
> While that would certainly be nifty, I think we're arguably starting
> from the wrong point here. Why are we booting a kernel, trying to poke
> the hardware back into some sort of mock-quiescent state, freeing memory
> and then (finally) overwriting the entire contents of RAM rather than
> just doing all of this from the bootloader? Given the time spent in
> kernel setup and unpacking initramfs nowadays, I'm willing to bet it'd
> still be faster even if you're stuck using int 13 on x86.
Yes, that would be faster.
> http://apcmag.com/5873/page14 suggests that Intel is looking into this,
> but I haven't heard anything more yet. To the best of my knowledge, this
> is also how Windows manages things.
I think you're right.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
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