[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200709221240.25614.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:40:24 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
Cc: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, nigel@...pend2.net,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Saturday 22 September 2007 09:19:18 Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > I think that in order for this to work, there would need to be some
> > ABI whereby the resume-ing kernel can pass its entire ACPI state and
> > a bunch of other ACPI-related device details to the resume-ed kernel,
> > which I believe it does not do at the moment. I believe that what
> > causes problems is the ACPI state data that the kernel stores is
> > *different* between identical sequential boots, especially when you
> > add/remove/replace batteries, AC, etc.
>
> That's certainly possible. We already pass a very small amount of data between
> the boot and resuming kernels at the moment, and it's done quite simply - by
> putting the variables we want to 'transfer' in a nosave page/section.
Well, if the boot and image kernels are different, which is now possible on
x86_64 with some recent patches (currently in -mm), the nosave trick won't
work.
Still, I don't think we need to pass anything from the boot to the image
kernel. Moreover, we shouldn't do that, IMO (arguably, the boot kernel
could be replaced with a resume-aware boot loader).
> I could conceive of a scheme wherein this was extended for driver data.
> Since the memory needed would depend on the drivers loaded, it would
> probably require that the space be allocated when hibernating, and the
> locations of structures be stored in the image header and then drivers
> notified of the locations to use when preparing to resume, but it could
> work...
>
> > Since we currently throw away most of that in-kernel ACPI interpreter
> > state data when we load the to-be-resumed image and replace it with
> > the state from the previous boot it looks to the ACPI code and
> > firmware like our system's hardware magically changed behind its
> > back. The result is that the ACPI and firmware code is justifiably
> > confused (although probably it should be more idempotent to begin
> > with). There's 2 potential solutions:
> > 1) Formalize and copy a *lot* of ACPI state from the resume-ing
> > kernel to the resume-ed kernel.
> > 2) Properly call the ACPI S4 methods in the proper order
>
> ... that said, I don't think the above should be necessary in most cases. I
> believe we're already calling the ACPI S4 methods in the proper order. If I
> understood correctly, Rafael put a lot of effort into learning what that was,
> and into ensuring it does get done.
Yes, I did, but I can be wrong nevertheless. ;-)
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