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

[Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>]

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 13 July 2007 19:32, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:06 -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
> > > >> I agree, a stipped down hibernate kernel can be very small, not
> > > >> allocating this memory until it's needed is a step for the final
> > > >> polishing.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure if I agree with that.  In any case, having to use two
> > > > different kernels for hibernation would be a big drawback.
> > >
> > > I see it as a big advantage to not have to use the main kernel for the
> > > suspend. please keep it as an option at least.
> >
> > Yes. It has additional bonus to make it possible to write/read image
> > from a program other than main kernel. For example, for a specific
> > mobile device product (Such as Intel MID), a customized ultra-small
> > program (or kernel) can be composed to write/read image. That way, the
> > hibernate/resume time can be reduced to minimal.

Sounds great!

> You don't need kexec for that.  This is how the userland hibernation (aka
> uswsusp) works.

I don't think so.  uswsusp runs under the normal kernel which implies an 
interdependency, whereas a device driver stub'd with a small single proc 
kernel would run in its own space.

The question is, how small could this kernel stub be made and still leverage 
the device driver pool?


Thanks!

--
Al

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/