Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:17:17 +0300 | From | "Pekka Enberg" <> | Subject | Re: Back to the future. |
| |
Hi Nigel,
On 4/26/07, Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> wrote: > * Doing things in the right order? (Prepare the image, then do the > atomic copy, then save).
As I am a total newbie to the power management code, I am unable to spot the conceptual difference in uswsusp suspend.c:suspend_system() and suspend2 kernel/power/suspend.c:suspend_main(). How are they different?
On 4/26/07, Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> wrote: > * Mulithreaded I/O (might as well use multiple cores to compress the > image, now that we're hotplugging later).
I assume this doesn't affect the kernel at all with uswsusp?
On 4/26/07, Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> wrote: > * Modular design?
This is too broad. Please be more specific of the problems the current suspend and snapshot/shutdown code in the kernel has.
Now to add to your list, as far as I can tell, suspend2 provides better feedback to the user via the netlink mechanism (although the kernel shouldn't be sending messages such as userui_redraw but instead let the userspace know of the actual events, for example, that tasks have now been frozen). However, I am unsure if this is still relevant as most of the work (snapshot writing) is being done in userspace where we explicitly know when processes have been frozen, when the snapshot is finished, and when it's written to disk.
Pekka - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |