[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707152040.28744.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:40:28 +0300
From: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To: jimmy bahuleyan <knight.camelot@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, david@...g.hm
Subject: Re: Hibernation considerations
jimmy bahuleyan wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > This should be the responsibility of the kexec'd hibernating kernel.
> > Note though in (6), the normal kernel takes care of preparing devices,
> > then the hibernating kernel dumps the image and either calls S4 or S3.
> > On resume from S3 it can immediately switch over to the normal kernel,
> > and from S4 the known bootup would occur.
> >
> >> (8) Hibernation and restore should not be too slow
> >>
> >> In my opinion, if more than one minute is needed to hibernate the
> >> system with the help of certain hibernation framework, then this
> >> framework is not very useful in practice. It might be useful to
> >> perform some special tasks (eg. moving a server to another place
> >> without taking it down), but it is not very useful, for example, to
> >> notebook users.
> >
> > The latest hibernating kexec patches boot a kexec'd modular kernel with
> > initramfs into crashkernel=16M@16M in less than one second. Switch-back
> > is almost instant. Add to this the time required to either store or
> > restore the image, and it may be obvious that this approach isn't
> > slower, but maybe even faster than the current swsusp.
>
> What about (9)? Would it be that a user choosing to build a kernel with
> hibernate support gets a additional modular kernel built (which he
> should then use for resumption) or he should configure & build the
> modular kernel independent of main kernel?
>
> Or will the Linux boot procedure change so that it always goes thru a
> modular part followed by kexec (just to be uniform)?
>
> Although the kexec approach seems interesting, the final user-scenario
> seems a bit complex (or confusing).
Well, it may sound confusing because it is so unexpectedly simple. I didn't
answer to (9) because from a user pov nothing should change, and everything
should be scriptable such that the user wouldn't even notice the kernel
using a new hibernation approach.
Thanks!
--
Al
-
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