Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: A kexec approach to hibernation | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Date | Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:14:34 +1000 |
| |
Hi again.
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 10:05 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 4 June 2007 07:22, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > I can see that the idea of writing a kernel image from using another > > kernel sounds nice and clean initially, but the more we get into the > > details (yes, I am listening, even though I said nothing before now), > > the more it's sounding like the cure is worse than the disease. > > > > To get rid of process freezing, we're talking about: > > * making hibernation depend on depriving the user of 32 or 64M of > > otherwise perfectly usable memory (thereby making hibernation on > > machines with less memory impossible) > > * requiring them to set up kexec or kdump (I don't understand the > > difference, sorry) or some new variation > > * adding interfaces to tell kexec/dump/whatever what pages need to be > > saved and reloaded > > * adding convolutions in which at resume time we boot one kernel, switch > > to another kernel to do the loading and then switch back again to the > > resumed kernel (assuming I understand what you're suggesting). > > > > It all sounds terribly complicated and confusing to me, and that's > > before I even begin to think about how this second kernel could possibly > > write the image to an encrypted device or LVM or such like that the > > first kernel knows about and might use now. > > > > Can't we just get the freezer right and be done with it? > > My feelings about this are pretty much the same. :-) > > At least, there still is room for improvements within the current approach, > so first I'd like to improve it as much as reasonably possible and then to > think of alternatives, if need be.
Agreed. I'm not for a moment denying that the current freezer could be better, but biffing it out the window just doesn't seem to be the appropriate solution at the moment.
Regards,
Nigel [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |