[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [PATCH -mm] kexec jump -v9
    On Tuesday, 18 of March 2008, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> writes:
    > > On Friday, 14 of March 2008, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > >
    > >> > Still, it would be sufficient if we disconnected the drivers from the
    > > hardware
    > >> > and thus prevented applications from accessing that hardware.
    > >>
    > >> My gut feeling is that except for a handful of drivers we could even
    > >> get away with simply implementing hot unplug and hot replug. Disks
    > >> are the big exception here.
    > >>
    > >> Which suggests to me that it is at least possible that the methods we
    > >> want for a kexec jump hibernation may be different from an in-kernel
    > >> hibernation and quite possibly are easier to implement.
    > >
    > > I'm not sure about the "easier" part, quite frankly. Also, with our current
    > > ordering of code the in-kernel hibernation will need the same callbacks
    > > as the kexec-based thing. However, with the in-kernel approach we can
    > > attempt (in the future) to be more ACPI compliant, so to speak, but with the
    > > kexec-based approach that won't be possible.
    > >
    > > Whether it's a good idea to follow ACPI, as far as hibernation is concerned, is
    > > a separate question, but IMO we won't be able to answer it without _lots_ of
    > > testing on vaious BIOS/firmware configurations. Our experience so far
    > > indicates that at least some BIOSes expect us to follow ACPI and misbehave
    > > otherwise, so for those systems there should be an "ACPI way" available.
    > > [Others just don't work well if we try to follow ACPI and those may be handled
    > > using the kexec-based approach, but that doesn't mean that we can just ignore
    > > the ACPI compliance issue, at least for now.]
    > If we do use the ACPI S4 state I completely agree we should be at
    > least spec compliant in how we use it.
    > I took a quick skim through my copy of the ACPI spec so I could get a
    > feel for this issue. Hibernation maps to the ACPI S4 state. The only
    > thing we appear to gain from S4 is the ability to tell the BIOS (so it
    > can tell a bootloader) that this was a hibernation power off instead
    > of simply a software power off.
    > It looks like entering the ACPI S4 state has a few advantages with
    > respect to how the system wakes up. In general using the ACPI S5
    > state (soft off) appears simpler, and potentially more reliable.
    > The sequence we appear to want is:
    > - Disconnecting drivers from devices.
    > - Saving the image.
    > - Placing the system in a low power or off state.
    > - Coming out of the low power state.
    > - Restoring the image.
    > - Reconnecting drivers to devices.
    > (We must assume the device state could have changed here
    > no matter what we do)
    > It is mostly a matter of where we place the code.
    > Right now I don't see a limitation either with a kexec based approach
    > or without one. Especially since the common case would be using
    > the same kernel with the same drivers both before and after the
    > hibernation event.
    > The low power states for S4 seem to be just so that we can
    > decide which devices have enough life that they can wake up
    > the system. If we handle all of that as a second pass after
    > we have the system in a state where we have saved it we should
    > be in good shape.
    > My inclination is to just use S5 (soft off).
    > One of the cool things about hibernation to disk was that we were
    > supposed to get the BIOS totally out of that path so we could get
    > something that was rock solid and reliable. I don't see why we should
    > use ACPI S4 when the BIOS doesn't seem to give us anything useful, and
    > causes us headaches we should even consider using S4.
    > Does using the S4 state have advantages that I currently do not
    > see?
    > Len? Rafael? Anyone?

    Well, I've been saying that for I-don't-remember-how-long: on my box, if you
    use S5 instead of entering S4, the fan doesn't work correctly after the
    resume. Plain and simple.

    Perhaps there's a problem with our ACPI drivers that causes this to happen,
    but I have no idea what that can be at the moment.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-19 22:55    [W:0.026 / U:4.960 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site