[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)

On Monday 06 February 2006 20:59, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> [Head straight down for j. if you hate long mails.]
> > > Complexity in userspace: ungood.
> > >
> > > Complexity in kernel: doubleplusungood.
> > >
> > > It is not that hard to understand :-).
> >
> > Heh. you'll soon be submitting patches to move interrupt handling and
> > scheduling to userspace then?
> If I figure out how to do that with equivalent performance and without
> excessive uglyness... yes.
> [This has hidden assumption that we want to include *all* the features
> suspend2 has. We could do it... but we probably do not want to.]

Not hidden - I said I didn't expect you'd do most of the Suspend2 stuff,
but was trying to compare apples with apples to make the comparison fair.

> > a. Freezing processes, freeing memory and preparing the image.
> ...
> > Freeing memory and preparing the image is significantly simpler for
> > swsusp at the moment because it doesn't support swap files, and
> > doesn't
> I do not see why I'd have to modify freezer for supporting swap
> files. It is really unrelated part. If I want to support swap files,
> I'll just bmap() them from userspace, then write to blockdevice
> directly, like lilo or grub does.

It would be needed because they're on filesystems. Freezing the
filesystems, then trying to eat memory to the degree that the system tries
to swap would lead to a deadlock if that swap was on a frozen filesystem.
Conversely, trying to freeze the memory before freezing processes would be
unreliable because it relies on not racing against other processes trying
to work.

> b. missing?


> > c. Compression and encryption.
> ...
> > libraries or using cryptoapi functions via ioctls or such like. Making
> > such support optional and configurable would require further
> > modification. Using userspace libraries for compression and encryption
> > would increase the complexity of configuring uswsusp for a developer
> > (extra packages to download/configure/install), and create greater
> > potential for support issues for developers and distributions (uswusp
> > gets blamed for any problems in those libraries but can't do anything
> > to fix them!).
> Yes, that is how libraries work. Any userland application has these
> "problems". uswsusp is clearly better here.

How so? For Suspend2, we just use existing cryptoapi modules without any
requirement for particular libraries or such like.

> > d. Storage of the image.
> >
> > As it currently stands, the interface between userspace and the kernel
> > for uswsusp looks clean and simple. This is mainly, however, because
> > it only supports writing to swap, and strictly synchronously.
> ...and it is going to stay that way.

No plans for writing to anywhere else but swap?

> > If you were going to match the functionality in suspend2, you would be
> > looking at adding support for (a) asynchronous I/O, (b) for ordinary
> > files, (c) for multiple swap devices (d) for swapfiles and (e) for the
> > varying blocksizes of filesystems. I assume uswsusp won't currently
> > work with swapfiles (as opposed to swap partitions) as it stands
> > because I see a check for !S_ISBLK(resume_device) in suspend.c::main.
> (a) Reading image from kernel is memory-to-memory transfer --
> i.e. extremely fast. There's nothing to be gained by asynchronous
> I/O. (Write to disk can still be done asynchronous, kernel has
> interfaces to do that). (b) is going to be solved by bmap. Maybe I'll
> need some small changes for (c) and (d); don't see why (e) applies to
> me.

By I/O, I didn't mean the transfers between userspace and the kernel, but
I/O - ie writing pages to disk (or whatever).

> > userspace for getting the sector numbers of storage. Finally, you'd
> > want to use bio functions to submit the I/O, and a kernel routine to
> > handle the completion. Then you'd need some mechanism to wait for or
> > check for completion of I/O on a particular page or all pages. Of
> > course you might decide not to do async I/O because it's too complex,
> > but then you'd take the performance hit you currently have, and we
> > wouldn't have an apples with apples comparison.
> Submit bios from userspace? Eeek? We have perfectly working async io

Yes. But then how do you submit I/O to files on filesystems you can't
mount? You're stuck with swap partitions only forever?

> interface for userland, and BTW going async will not give you too much
> of performance advantage here...

How do you know that? Suspend2 has async I/O, and can write the image as
fast as the drive can take it. Some testing I did a while ago showed a max
throughput of 16MB/s for swsusp vs 35 (what the drive is capable of) for
Suspend2. Add LZF compression and it's 70MB/s vs 16MB/s.

> > e. Atomic copy/restore.
> >
> > This is currently achieved in kernelspace, as it is for Suspend2. It
> > would seem to be extremely unlikely that this could be implemented in
> > userspace.
> No, this stays in kernel.
> > f. User tuning and configuration.
> ...
> > Suspend2 offers far more support for tuning and configuration via a
> > proc interface. Suspend2 implements an additional layer on top of the
> > base proc routines, which might be useful elsewhere in the kernel.
> > This layer allows additional entries to be created at very little
> > cost, and avoid duplicating code for each entry. This is an area of
> > additional complexity that Suspend2 has at the moment, but similar
> > additions would be helpful in the userspace program for the same
> > reasons.
> uswsusp wins here -- at least it does the config stuff in userspace.

The difference is really only in how the support is exported (ioctl vs

> > g. Writing a full image of memory.
> >
> > Not possible in uswsusp right now. If the algorithm of Suspend2 was
> > used (wherein LRU pages are saved separately), support would need to
> > be added for marking which LRU pages should be in the atomic copy
> > (because they belong to the freezing process), and for reading and
> > writing the sets of pages separately.
> I'm not sure if we want to save full image of memory. Saving most-used
> caches only seems to work fairly well.

You're certainly doing a lot better than when you were eating everything
you could. But whether 1/2 is adequate depends on the mix of applications
and ultimately the user's requirements.

> > h. Powering down.
> >
> > uswsusp currently supports using the sys_reboot restart and power off
> > functions. There is no support for entering the ACPI S4 state, or for
> > suspending-to-ram instead of powering off. Adding these would require
> > additional ioctls and kernelspace functions, and the capability of
> > configuring which powerdown method to use.
> Yes, we'll need ioctls to enter S3 and S4.

Shouldn't be hard at all, either, of course.

> Do you actually support suspend-to-ram at end of suspend2? That is one
> feature I'd like to play with.

Yes (provided that S3 works on your machine normally).

> > i. Status display.
> ...
> > is required when updating the kernel). It has also created additional
> > complexity in that the code for doing the userui in the kernel didn't
> > really go away - it was just replaced by code to communicate with
> > userspace and get it to do the work. On the positive side, though,
> As we do image writing in userspace, anyway, it does not mean
> aditional interface to userspace for us.

But you don't. Doing image writing in userspace would involve having IDE
drivers etc in userspace. You're copying the snapshot to userspace, then
sending it straight back to the kernel one page at a time. I haven't
looked again while writing this, but I wonder if userspace even knows
exactly where the image is being stored.

> > j. Summary.
> >
> > At their cores, Suspend2 and uswsusp work in basically the same
> Yes, basically. They'll be similar complexity in the end, differing
> very much where the complexity is.
> Currently suspend2 is 14K lines of code in kernel. Not sure how much
> in userspace.

I just did wc -l on the userui svn repository *.[ch] files. I think
(Bernard's the expert) that this includes source for the text mode,
fbsplash and experimental animation uis. It looks like the text and
fbsplash onces are about 1k each and the animation one is larger, but I'm
not sure.

> Current uswsusp is 3K lines of code in kernel, 1K lines of code in
> userspace.
> When we are done, we'll have perhaps 2.5K lines of code in kernel
> (in-kernel swap writing support goes away), and maybe 20K lines in
> userspace.

Without adding which out of async I/O, compression, encryption, swap file
support, and ordinary file support?

> That may not seem like a big difference to you, but it really is. It
> keeps complexity out-of-kernel.
> > It seems most likely that uswsusp would never match the current
> > Suspend2 in terms of functionality, or would take a very long time to
> > get there. Support for implementing a full image of memory will likely
> > never happen, and asynchronous I/O would be unlikely too. If the
> > flexibility in how to compress/encrypt and write the image that
> > Suspend2 currently has were to be implemented in uswsusp, it would
> > require a modular architecture along the lines of the one that has
> > been rejected in the Modules support thread.
> It was rejected *for kernel*. Putting it in userspace is okay.



See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-06 13:21    [W:0.350 / U:1.116 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site