[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1190364431.21818.186.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:47:11 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Stefan Rompf <stefan@...lof.de>
Cc: linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, nigel@...el.suspend2.net,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 10:43 +0200, Stefan Rompf wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 20. September 2007 07:34 schrieb Huang, Ying:
>
> > The hibernation procedure with the patch set is as follow:
> >
> > 1. Boot a kernel A
> >
> > 2. Work under kernel A
> >
> > 3. Kexec another kernel B (crash dump enabled) in kernel A.
>
> From a short glance over current Linus' arch/i386/kernel/machine_kexec.c,
> memory for the crash dump kernel B still needs to be reserved statically when
> booting A.
>
> This is one of the biggest issues with kexec based hibernation. For the
> typical notebook user, it is totally unacceptable to reserve 16 megabytes of
> memory just to be able to suspend to disk. And given the fact that current
> distribution kernels are quite modular and require early module loading, even
> more memory might be needed.
>
> IMHO, a plan how to fix this must exist or the concept of kexec based
> hibernation is a waste of time.
This issue has been resolved. The implementation method details in
another mail with title as follow:
[RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
-
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