linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Proposal for a new algorithm for reading & writing a hibernation image.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201006052121.45816.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Sat, 5 Jun 2010 21:21:45 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
Cc:	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"TuxOnIce-devel" <tuxonice-devel@...onice.net>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Proposal for a new algorithm 
 for	reading & writing a hibernation image.

On Saturday 05 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 20:45 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: 
> > On Saturday 05 June 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi again.
> > > 
> > > As I think about this more, I reckon we could run into problems at 
> > > resume time with reloading the image. Even if some bits aren't modified 
> > > as we're writing the image, they still might need to be atomically 
> > > restored. If we make the atomic restore part too small, we might not be 
> > > able to do that.
> > > 
> > > So perhaps the best thing would be to stick with the way TuxOnIce splits 
> > > the image at the moment (page cache / process pages vs 'rest'), but 
> > > using this faulting mechanism to ensure we do get all the pages that are 
> > > changed while writing the first part of the image.
> > 
> > I still don't quite understand why you insist on saving the page cache data
> > upfront and re-using the memory occupied by them for another purpose.  If you
> > dropped that requirement, I'd really have much less of a problem with the
> > TuxOnIce's approach.
> Because its the biggest advantage?

It isn't in fact.

> Really saving whole memory makes huge difference.

You don't have to save the _whole_ memory to get the same speed (you don't
do that anyway, but the amount of data you don't put into the image with
TuxOnIce is smaller).  Something like 80% would be just sufficient IMO and
then (a) the level of complications involved would drop significantly and (2)
you'd be able to use the image-reading code already in the kernel without
any modifications.  It really looks like a win-win to me, doesn't it?

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/