On Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:00, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >This is not the point. There are memory regions that you should not
> _restore_,
> >because that will cause harm.
> >
> >> On x86_64, there is another usage of nosave during processing E820
>From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>This is not the point. There are memory regions that you should not
_restore_,
>because that will cause harm.
>
>> On x86_64, there is another usage of nosave during processing E820
>> memory map. But I don't know why the memory region other
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is not the point. There are memory regions that you should not
_restore_,
because that will cause harm.
On x86_64, there is another usage of nosave during processing E820
memory map. But I don't know why the memory region other than
On Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:00, Huang, Ying wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is not the point. There are memory regions that you should not
_restore_,
because that will cause harm.
On x86_64, there is another usage of nosave during processing E820
memory
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 14:48, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 01:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
however, since the resume designed for ACPI won't work would the following
approach work
1. boot one kernel
2. setup a kexec the same
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 14:48, Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 01:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > however, since the resume designed for ACPI won't work would the following
> > approach work
> >
> > 1. boot one kernel
> > 2. setup a kexec the same way you would for hibernate
>
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 01:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> however, since the resume designed for ACPI won't work would the following
> approach work
>
> 1. boot one kernel
> 2. setup a kexec the same way you would for hibernate
> 3. kexec to the new kernel
> 4. overwrite the memory of the
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 10:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ying, as the kexec guru in this thread I have a question for you about how
> kexec works (and possibly where you are going with this)
>
> for the power-off hibernate with ACPI disabled the hibernation seems
> fairly straightforward
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 06:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 16 July 2007 16:42, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> is this a matter of running some test to find out, or is this a
Ying, as the kexec guru in this thread I have a question for you about how
kexec works (and possibly where you are going with this)
for the power-off hibernate with ACPI disabled the hibernation seems
fairly straightforward (although there are still some missing pieces)
however, since the
Ying, as the kexec guru in this thread I have a question for you about how
kexec works (and possibly where you are going with this)
for the power-off hibernate with ACPI disabled the hibernation seems
fairly straightforward (although there are still some missing pieces)
however, since the
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 06:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 16 July 2007 16:42, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
is this a matter of running some test to find out, or is this a question
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 10:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ying, as the kexec guru in this thread I have a question for you about how
kexec works (and possibly where you are going with this)
for the power-off hibernate with ACPI disabled the hibernation seems
fairly straightforward (although
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 01:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
however, since the resume designed for ACPI won't work would the following
approach work
1. boot one kernel
2. setup a kexec the same way you would for hibernate
3. kexec to the new kernel
4. overwrite the memory of the first
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 14:48, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 01:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
however, since the resume designed for ACPI won't work would the following
approach work
1. boot one kernel
2. setup a kexec the same way you would for hibernate
3. kexec
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 14:48, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 01:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
however, since the resume designed for ACPI won't work would the following
approach work
1. boot one kernel
2. setup a kexec the same
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 16 July 2007 16:42, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
is this a matter of running some test to find out, or is this a question
for the kexec implemantors?
Actually, I'd like someone to
On Monday, 16 July 2007 16:42, Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > is this a matter of running some test to find out, or is this a question
> > > for the kexec implemantors?
> >
> > Actually, I'd like someone to tell me. ;-)
> >
> > I've
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > is this a matter of running some test to find out, or is this a question
> > for the kexec implemantors?
>
> Actually, I'd like someone to tell me. ;-)
>
> I've browsed the kexec code, but haven't found anything related to the
On Monday, 16 July 2007 01:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> >> I think this is far more complicated then it needs to be.
> >>
On Monday, 16 July 2007 01:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think this is far more complicated then it needs to be.
it sounds like it
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
is this a matter of running some test to find out, or is this a question
for the kexec implemantors?
Actually, I'd like someone to tell me. ;-)
I've browsed the kexec code, but haven't found anything related to the devices
in
On Monday, 16 July 2007 16:42, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
is this a matter of running some test to find out, or is this a question
for the kexec implemantors?
Actually, I'd like someone to tell me. ;-)
I've browsed the kexec
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 16 July 2007 16:42, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
is this a matter of running some test to find out, or is this a question
for the kexec implemantors?
Actually, I'd like someone to
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51,
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think this is far more complicated then it needs to be.
it sounds like it should be possible to do the following
1. figure out what pages
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> I think this is far more complicated then it needs to be.
>
> it sounds like it should be possible to do the following
>
> 1. figure out what pages should be backed
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Ok, now we need a data channel from
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think this is far more complicated then it needs to be.
it sounds like it should be possible to do the following
1. figure out what pages should be backed up (creating a data structure to
hold them)
That should be done after step 2, because
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 11:30, Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > The devices should be quiesced and the state of devices should be saved
> > > in kexec_jump, before relocate_kernel is called. This needs the
> > > implementation of device
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> Ok, now we need a data channel from the old kernel to the
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 14 July 2007 22:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> in the past, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> >>> BTW, please read this message and tell me what you think:
> >>>
> >>>
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > The devices should be quiesced and the state of devices should be saved
> > in kexec_jump, before relocate_kernel is called. This needs the
> > implementation of device hibernating as you mentioned before.
>
> Hmm, at which point
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The devices should be quiesced and the state of devices should be saved
in kexec_jump, before relocate_kernel is called. This needs the
implementation of device hibernating as you mentioned before.
Hmm, at which point devices are
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 22:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in the past, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
BTW, please read this message and tell me what you think:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Ok, now we need a data channel from the old kernel to the hibernate
kernel,
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 11:30, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The devices should be quiesced and the state of devices should be saved
in kexec_jump, before relocate_kernel is called. This needs the
implementation of device hibernating as
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think this is far more complicated then it needs to be.
it sounds like it should be possible to do the following
1. figure out what pages should be backed up (creating a data structure to
hold them)
That should be done after step 2, because
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Ok, now we need a data channel from
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think this is far more complicated then it needs to be.
it sounds like it should be possible to do the following
1. figure out what pages should be backed up (creating a data
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007,
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think this is far more complicated then it needs to be.
it sounds like it should be possible to do the following
1. figure out what pages
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51,
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Ok, now we need a data channel from the old kernel to the hibernate
kernel, to the restore kernel. and the messier the memory layout the
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 22:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in the past, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
BTW, please read this message and tell me what you think:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/13/265
Greetings,
Rafael
since I've deleted this message
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 22:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> in the past, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > BTW, please read this message and tell me what you think:
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/13/265
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Rafael
> >
> >
> >
>
> since I've deleted this message here's the
in the past, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
BTW, please read this message and tell me what you think:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/13/265
Greetings,
Rafael
since I've deleted this message here's the relavent portion of it
Okay, I have thought it through and I think that, as an initial step,
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> >> Ok, now we need a data channel from the old kernel to the hibernate
> >> kernel, to the restore kernel. and the messier the memory layout the
> >> larger this data channel needs to be
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 12:55, Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 11:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Hibernating process:
> > >
> > > 1. Normal kernel running
> > > 2. Hibernating is triggered, sys_kexec_load is used to load
> > > hibernating kernel and initramfs into
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 11:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hibernating process:
> >
> > 1. Normal kernel running
> > 2. Hibernating is triggered, sys_kexec_load is used to load
> > hibernating kernel and initramfs into memory. Then
> > sys_reboot(LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KSPAWN) is
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 07:48, Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:43 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Why a assembly stub is necessary? Is it not sufficient that just
> > > continue to complete a normal boot (hot add the reset of memory) or load
> > > the hibernated kernel
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 10:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> by the way, a data point on kernel sizes
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 864648 Jul 14 00:53 vmlinuz.2.6.22.1.hibernate
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 659496 Jul 14 01:17
> vmlinuz.2.6.22.1.hibernate.stripped
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3948168 Jul
by the way, a data point on kernel sizes
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 864648 Jul 14 00:53 vmlinuz.2.6.22.1.hibernate
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 659496 Jul 14 01:17 vmlinuz.2.6.22.1.hibernate.stripped
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3948168 Jul 14 01:10 vmlinuz.2.6.22.1.running
the running one matches the config
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Ok, now we need a data channel from the old kernel to the hibernate
kernel, to the restore kernel. and the messier the memory layout the
larger this data channel needs to be (hmm, what's the status on the memory
defrag patches being proposed?) if
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
remember release early, release often (with something that functions)
fo rthe current stage where we are trying to make things work don't worry
about packaging everything tight with initrd and re-useing partitions or
kernel images. once everything
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I missed this discussion. is this idea to suspend, write to disk, but
leave things in ram so that if you wakeup soon enough you have everything
for ram, but if you don't and the battery dies you can restore
Huang, Ying wrote:
>
> Hibernating process:
>
> 1. Normal kernel running
> 2. Hibernating is triggered, sys_kexec_load is used to load
> hibernating kernel and initramfs into memory. Then
> sys_reboot(LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KSPAWN) is invoked.
> 3. In sys_reboot, kexec_jump is called to
Huang, Ying wrote:
Hibernating process:
1. Normal kernel running
2. Hibernating is triggered, sys_kexec_load is used to load
hibernating kernel and initramfs into memory. Then
sys_reboot(LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KSPAWN) is invoked.
3. In sys_reboot, kexec_jump is called to save
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I missed this discussion. is this idea to suspend, write to disk, but
leave things in ram so that if you wakeup soon enough you have everything
for ram, but if you don't and the battery dies you can restore
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
remember release early, release often (with something that functions)
fo rthe current stage where we are trying to make things work don't worry
about packaging everything tight with initrd and re-useing partitions or
kernel images. once everything
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Ok, now we need a data channel from the old kernel to the hibernate
kernel, to the restore kernel. and the messier the memory layout the
larger this data channel needs to be (hmm, what's the status on the memory
defrag patches being proposed?) if
by the way, a data point on kernel sizes
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 864648 Jul 14 00:53 vmlinuz.2.6.22.1.hibernate
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 659496 Jul 14 01:17 vmlinuz.2.6.22.1.hibernate.stripped
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3948168 Jul 14 01:10 vmlinuz.2.6.22.1.running
the running one matches the config
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 10:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
by the way, a data point on kernel sizes
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 864648 Jul 14 00:53 vmlinuz.2.6.22.1.hibernate
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 659496 Jul 14 01:17
vmlinuz.2.6.22.1.hibernate.stripped
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3948168 Jul 14
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 07:48, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:43 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Why a assembly stub is necessary? Is it not sufficient that just
continue to complete a normal boot (hot add the reset of memory) or load
the hibernated kernel (hibernated
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 11:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hibernating process:
1. Normal kernel running
2. Hibernating is triggered, sys_kexec_load is used to load
hibernating kernel and initramfs into memory. Then
sys_reboot(LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KSPAWN) is invoked.
3.
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 12:55, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 11:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hibernating process:
1. Normal kernel running
2. Hibernating is triggered, sys_kexec_load is used to load
hibernating kernel and initramfs into memory. Then
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Ok, now we need a data channel from the old kernel to the hibernate
kernel, to the restore kernel. and the messier the memory layout the
larger this data channel needs to be (hmm,
in the past, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
BTW, please read this message and tell me what you think:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/13/265
Greetings,
Rafael
since I've deleted this message here's the relavent portion of it
Okay, I have thought it through and I think that, as an initial step,
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 22:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in the past, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
BTW, please read this message and tell me what you think:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/13/265
Greetings,
Rafael
since I've deleted this message here's the relavent portion of it
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 22:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in the past, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
BTW, please read this message and tell me what you think:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/13/265
Greetings,
Rafael
since I've deleted this message
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 09:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Ok, now we need a data channel from the old kernel to the hibernate
kernel, to the restore kernel. and the messier the memory layout the
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:43 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Why a assembly stub is necessary? Is it not sufficient that just
> > continue to complete a normal boot (hot add the reset of memory) or load
> > the hibernated kernel (hibernated image) and jump to it?
>
> I was thinking the
On Friday, 13 July 2007 18:48, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Okay, I have thought it through and I think that, as an initial step, we
> > can do
> > something like this:
>
> > - preload the image-saving kernel before hibernation
On Friday, 13 July 2007 20:15, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > > I doubt that re-probing devices will work. The probe routine won't
> > > expect there to be any registered children, so it will try to
> > > re-register them.
> >
> > So really unregister
On Friday, 13 July 2007 17:50, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Okay, I have thought it through and I think that, as an initial step, we
> > can do
> > something like this:
> >
> > - preload the image-saving kernel before hibernation
> > - in the
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I doubt that re-probing devices will work. The probe routine won't
> > expect there to be any registered children, so it will try to
> > re-register them.
>
> So really unregister the children. All we really need to do is disassociate
> the
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> Okay, I have thought it through and I think that, as an initial step, we can
> do
>> something like this:
>>
>> - preload the image-saving kernel before hibernation
>> - in the hibernation code path
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> Okay, I have thought it through and I think that, as an initial step, we can
> do
> something like this:
> - preload the image-saving kernel before hibernation
> - in the hibernation code path replace device_suspend() with the shutting
"Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:32 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >
>> > 1. Separate device suspend from device hibernate.
>>
>> Actually in some very practical sense we already have two copies of
>> this in the kernel. device_shutdown and the
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Okay, I have thought it through and I think that, as an initial step, we can
> do
> something like this:
>
> - preload the image-saving kernel before hibernation
> - in the hibernation code path replace device_suspend() with the shutting
> down
On Friday, 13 July 2007 17:28, Al Boldi wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > We have quite an efficient restoration code in the kernel right now. It's
> > able to upload big images (something like total RAM minus the size of the
> > boot kernel, initrd and, optionally, the resume application),
On Friday, 13 July 2007 17:12, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Not necessarily. If we don't put devices into low power states before
> > creating
> > the image, that should work just fine (quiesce devices, create the image or
> >
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 13 July 2007 19:32, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
> > > >>
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> We have quite an efficient restoration code in the kernel right now. It's
> able to upload big images (something like total RAM minus the size of the
> boot kernel, initrd and, optionally, the resume application), which is
> much more than we're able to save. :-)
>
> It
On Friday, 13 July 2007 16:37, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > I missed this discussion. is this idea to suspend, write to disk, but
> > > leave things in ram so that if you wakeup soon enough you have everything
> > > for ram, but if you don't and the
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:54 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Sorry, I should have re-checked the mail before sending out.
>
> Were your patches enough to get hibernation working? I got kexec to
> work here, so I guess I'm one step closer...
Yes, it is just the first step. There are still many
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:32 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > 1. Separate device suspend from device hibernate.
>
> Actually in some very practical sense we already have two copies of
> this in the kernel. device_shutdown and the hotunplug/module
> remove code. So it is should be mostly a
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> Not necessarily. If we don't put devices into low power states before
> creating
> the image, that should work just fine (quiesce devices, create the image or
> kexec the new kernel, reprobe devices, save the image, suspend to RAM,
>
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I missed this discussion. is this idea to suspend, write to disk, but
> > leave things in ram so that if you wakeup soon enough you have everything
> > for ram, but if you don't and the battery dies you can restore from disk?
> >
> > if so I
On Friday, 13 July 2007 19:32, Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Friday, 13 July 2007 11:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 13 July 2007 05:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, 12 July 2007 20:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On
EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [P
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 13 July 2007 05:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, 12 July 2007 20:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
2. Do not reserve memory for kexec
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
> >
OTECTED]>, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Kexec jump: The first step to kexec base hibernation
On Friday, 13 July 2007 05:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Jeremy Ma
On Friday, 13 July 2007 05:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 12 July 2007 20:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> 2. Do not reserve memory for kexec kernel. That is, backup needed
On Friday, 13 July 2007 05:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>
> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> There's more to it, though. If devices are suspended, the hibernation
> >> kernel
> >> will have to resume
On Friday, 13 July 2007 11:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 13 July 2007 05:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, 12 July 2007 20:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007,
On Friday, 13 July 2007 19:32, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
