[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Software Suspend Functionality in 2.5
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:05:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> > Since we've had to work on a solution that can be used
> > for accurate non-disruptive dumps as well as crash dumps
> > (the latter using kexec), I was wondering whether it
> > was worth exploring possibilities of commonality with
> > swsusp down the line ... I know its not probably not
> > something very immediate, but just an indication on
> > whether we should keep applicability for swsusp (probably
> > reuse and share ideas/code back and forth between the
> > two efforts) in mind as we move forward. Because we
> > have to support a more restrictive situation when it
> > comes to dumping, it just may be usable by swsusp too
> > if we can get it right.
> Well, less code duplication is always welcome. But notice we need
> *atomic* snapshots in swsusp, else we might corrupt data.

Atomic snapshots are what we'd like for dump too, since we desire
accurate dumps (minimum drift), so its not a conflicting requirement.
The difference is that while you could do i/o (e.g to flush pages
to free up memory) before initiating an atomic snapshot, we can't.


Suparna Bhattacharya (
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Labs, India

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.033 / U:0.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site