[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 02:44:06PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 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.
> OTOH "best-effort-atomic" is probably okay for you, while it is not
> acceptable for swsusp. Hopefully the code is not going to get too
> complicated by "must be atomic" and "must work with crashed system"
> requirements...
For the kind of atomicity you need there probably are two
1) Quiesce the system - get to a point of consistency (when you
can take a resumable snapshot)
2) Perform an atomic copy / snapshot

Step (1) would be different for swsusp and crash dump (not
intended to be common ). But for Step (2), do you think
what you need/do is complicated by crashed system requirements ?


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:0.036 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site