Re: A kexec approach to hibernation

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>]

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part