[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47190B28.6070405@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:53:12 -0400
From: Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, nigel@...el.suspend2.net,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v5
Huang, Ying wrote:
> 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.
>
> 4. Save the memory image of kernel A through crash dump (such as "cp
> /proc/vmcore ~"). Save the "jump back entry".
Doesn't this also save the memory of kernel B?
> 5. Shutdown or reboot
>
>
> The restore process with the patch set is as follow:
>
> 1. Boot a kernel C (crash dump enabled), the memory area used by
> kernel C must be a subset of memory area used by kernel B.
Why is a third kernel needed? Why can't kernel B be used for this as
well? In fact, if kernel A has been compiled to be relocatable and
crash dump enabled, why wouldn't it suffice for all 3 instances?
-
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