Re: [PATCH 0/2] Kexec jump: The first step to kexec base hibernation

david
2007-07-12T19:15:45Z

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

>> 2. Do not reserve memory for kexec kernel. That is, backup needed memory
>> before kexec and restore them after kexec.
>> 3. Support the in-place kexec? The relocatable kernel is not necessary
>> if this can be implemented.
>
> It sounds like what you really want is the normal kexec path enhanced
> so that you can return to the kernel you started with.
>
> The normal kexec path already knows how to do the memory shuffle so
> it can do on demand memory allocation. That code just needs to
> enhanced slightly so that you allocate an extra page, setup an inverse
> scatter gather list for restoring the pages, and teach relocate_kernel.S
> to preserve it's destination pages by using the inverse scatter gather
> list.
>
> The normal kexec path already calls device_shutdown and the like to
> stop devices from running. Although again that code path is not
> prepared to restore the devices.

we shouldn't need a restore code path if the new kernel re-detects
everything. if kexec already shuts down all the devices we may not need to
implement anything new here (although there may be room for future
performance optimization)

> ...
>
> For prototyping I would:
> - reserve a chunk of memory (possibly with the crashkernel= option)
> and run a relocatable kernel out of it.
>
> By using the normal kexec you can boot a relocatable restore kernel
> in that reserved region. It is an extra step but it makes things
> work today.
>
> - I would use the normal sys_kexec_load.
>
> - I would debug/tweak the user space and the code to reenter the
> old kernel. I.e. the device driver stop/start code.
>
> Once it was basically working I would the update normal kexec
> memory copy code in relocate.S to preserve the destination pages.

for prototyping there's no need to use the same kernel.

>> 4. Image writing/reading. (Only user space application is needed).
>
> And possibly a few fixes to /dev/mem. This is pretty much the same
> process as generating a core dump so there should be some synergy with that.

what fixes are you thinking of?

you are makeing this sound very simple ;-)

David Lang