From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1IYaRz-0005Gh-W4 for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:49:15 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump References: <1190266447.21818.17.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <200709211225.25874.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> <1190342757.21818.75.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <200709211259.00195.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:46:08 -0600 In-Reply-To: <200709211259.00195.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> (Nigel Cunningham's message of "Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:58:59 +1000") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: nigel@suspend2.net Cc: Kexec Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek , "Huang, Ying" , Andrew Morton , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard Nigel Cunningham writes: > > Sounds doable, as long as you can cope with long command lines (which > shouldn't be a biggie). (If you've got a swapfile or parts of a swap > partition already in use, it can be quite fragmented). Hmm. This is an interesting problem. Sharing a swap file or a swap partition with the actual swap of user space pages does seem to be a limitation of this approach. Although the fact that it is simple to write to a separate file may be a reasonable compensation. > Andrew, you're seeing that it really doesn't mean the removal of all > hibernation code from the kernel being suspended, aren't you? (And if the > kexec'd kernel is the same binary, then there's more code again). More binary size yes not more code to maintain. As for the rest the current implementation is small enough and allows for enough beyond hibernation I think it makes sense to eventually merge assuming a good clean implementation can be achieved. Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751971AbXIUEth (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:49:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752301AbXIUEta (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:49:30 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:60446 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752241AbXIUEt3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:49:29 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: nigel@suspend2.net Cc: "Huang, Ying" , Andrew Morton , Pavel Machek , Jeremy Maitin-Shepard , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Kexec Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump References: <1190266447.21818.17.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <200709211225.25874.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> <1190342757.21818.75.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <200709211259.00195.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:46:08 -0600 In-Reply-To: <200709211259.00195.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> (Nigel Cunningham's message of "Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:58:59 +1000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nigel Cunningham writes: > > Sounds doable, as long as you can cope with long command lines (which > shouldn't be a biggie). (If you've got a swapfile or parts of a swap > partition already in use, it can be quite fragmented). Hmm. This is an interesting problem. Sharing a swap file or a swap partition with the actual swap of user space pages does seem to be a limitation of this approach. Although the fact that it is simple to write to a separate file may be a reasonable compensation. > Andrew, you're seeing that it really doesn't mean the removal of all > hibernation code from the kernel being suspended, aren't you? (And if the > kexec'd kernel is the same binary, then there's more code again). More binary size yes not more code to maintain. As for the rest the current implementation is small enough and allows for enough beyond hibernation I think it makes sense to eventually merge assuming a good clean implementation can be achieved. Eric