Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-10-24 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Thursday, 11 October 2007 22:54, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > That's certainly possible. We already pass a very small amount of data > > > between > > > the boot and resuming kernels at the moment, and it's done quite simply - > > > by > > > putting the variables we want to 'transfer'

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-10-24 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > That's certainly possible. We already pass a very small amount of data > > between > > the boot and resuming kernels at the moment, and it's done quite simply - > > by > > putting the variables we want to 'transfer' in a nosave page/section. > > Well, if the boot and image kernels

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-10-24 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! That's certainly possible. We already pass a very small amount of data between the boot and resuming kernels at the moment, and it's done quite simply - by putting the variables we want to 'transfer' in a nosave page/section. Well, if the boot and image kernels are different,

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-10-24 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Thursday, 11 October 2007 22:54, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! That's certainly possible. We already pass a very small amount of data between the boot and resuming kernels at the moment, and it's done quite simply - by putting the variables we want to 'transfer' in a nosave

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-27 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Thursday 27 September 2007 16:33:54 Huang, Ying wrote: > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:30 -0400, Joseph Fannin wrote: > > But, in my ignorance, I'm not sure even fixing the ext3 bug will > > guarantee you consistent metadata so that you can handle a > > swap/hibernate file. You can do a

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-27 Thread Huang, Ying
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:30 -0400, Joseph Fannin wrote: > But, in my ignorance, I'm not sure even fixing the ext3 bug will > guarantee you consistent metadata so that you can handle a > swap/hibernate file. You can do a sync(), but how do you make that > not race against running processes

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-27 Thread Huang, Ying
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:30 -0400, Joseph Fannin wrote: But, in my ignorance, I'm not sure even fixing the ext3 bug will guarantee you consistent metadata so that you can handle a swap/hibernate file. You can do a sync(), but how do you make that not race against running processes without

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-27 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Thursday 27 September 2007 16:33:54 Huang, Ying wrote: On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:30 -0400, Joseph Fannin wrote: But, in my ignorance, I'm not sure even fixing the ext3 bug will guarantee you consistent metadata so that you can handle a swap/hibernate file. You can do a sync(),

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-26 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Thursday 27 September 2007 06:30:36 Joseph Fannin wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > > 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

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-26 Thread Joseph Fannin
FWIW, on all the hardware I have, Windows is able to deal with: (1) hibernate Windows (2) run $(OTHER_OS) (3) resume Windows ... which seems to me to say that Linux is doing it wrong if it can't handle other ACPI users between hibernate and resume. But maybe that's just my

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-26 Thread Joseph Fannin
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > > 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.

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-26 Thread Joseph Fannin
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! 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

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-26 Thread Joseph Fannin
FWIW, on all the hardware I have, Windows is able to deal with: (1) hibernate Windows (2) run $(OTHER_OS) (3) resume Windows ... which seems to me to say that Linux is doing it wrong if it can't handle other ACPI users between hibernate and resume. But maybe that's just my

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-26 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Thursday 27 September 2007 06:30:36 Joseph Fannin wrote: On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! 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

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-24 Thread Thomas Meyer
Andrew Morton schrieb: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hi Andrew. >> >> On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: >> >>> Seems like good enough for -mm to me. >>> >>>

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-24 Thread Thomas Meyer
Andrew Morton schrieb: On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andrew. On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: Seems like good enough for -mm to me.

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-22 Thread Alon Bar-Lev
On 9/21/07, Huang, Ying <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is fairly simple in fact. For example, you can specify the > bdev/sectors in kernel command line when do kexec load "kexec -l <...> > --append='...'", then the image writing system can get it through > "cat /proc/cmdline". I hope you take

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-22 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 20:00, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Sep 22, 2007, at 06:34:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote: > >> On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > >>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-22 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Sep 22, 2007, at 06:34:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information accross

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-22 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Saturday 22 September 2007 09:19:18 Kyle Moffett wrote: > > I think that in order for this to work, there would need to be some > > ABI whereby the resume-ing kernel can pass its entire ACPI state and > > a bunch of

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-22 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information > >> accross the hibernation-resume cycle, so this need

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-22 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information accross the hibernation-resume cycle, so this need not be the

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-22 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi. On Saturday 22 September 2007 09:19:18 Kyle Moffett wrote: I think that in order for this to work, there would need to be some ABI whereby the resume-ing kernel can pass its entire ACPI state and a bunch of other

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-22 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Sep 22, 2007, at 06:34:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information accross the

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-22 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 20:00, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Sep 22, 2007, at 06:34:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The ACPI

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-22 Thread Alon Bar-Lev
On 9/21/07, Huang, Ying [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is fairly simple in fact. For example, you can specify the bdev/sectors in kernel command line when do kexec load kexec -l ... --append='...', then the image writing system can get it through cat /proc/cmdline. I hope you take into account

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Saturday 22 September 2007 09:19:18 Kyle Moffett wrote: > I think that in order for this to work, there would need to be some > ABI whereby the resume-ing kernel can pass its entire ACPI state and > a bunch of other ACPI-related device details to the resume-ed kernel, > which I

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information accross the hibernation-resume cycle, so this need not be the same. All of my comments related to the case where S4 is not

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday, 21 September 2007 23:08, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: >> >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 23:08, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >> > The ACPI NVS area is

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> [snip] >> >> > The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it. >> > On x86_64 we don't save any

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [snip] > > > The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it. > > On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as reserved and yet the > > above > >

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip] > The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it. > On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as reserved and yet the above > happens. I think you have mentioned before, though, that ACPI is first initialized

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 21:45, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > Well, the problem is that apparently some systems (eg. my HP nx6325) > > > > expect us > > > > to execute the _PTS ACPI global control method before creating the > > > > image _and_ >

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Alan Stern
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Well, the problem is that apparently some systems (eg. my HP nx6325) > > > expect us > > > to execute the _PTS ACPI global control method before creating the image > > > _and_ > > > to execute acpi_enter_sleep_state(ACPI_STATE_S4) in order to

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote: >> On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > > Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [--snip--] >>

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 20:11, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote: > >> On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 17:02, huang ying wrote: > On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote: > > > On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread huang ying
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote: > > On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote: > On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [--snip--] > > > > > > No one has yet attacked the hard problem of

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread huang ying
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Friday, 21 September 2007 03:41, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread huang ying
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd > > > end > > > up with people screaming

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 22:18:19 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, 21 September 2007 13:58, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > [Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default by > > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 13:58, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > [Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default by > > openSUSE and it's also used by quite some Debian users, so we can't drop > > it

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 11:49, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Seems like good enough for -mm to me. > > (For the record, I do not think this is going to be > hibernation-replacement any time soon. But it is functionality useful > for other stuff -- dump memory and continue -- and yes it

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > [Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default by > openSUSE and it's also used by quite some Debian users, so we can't drop > it overnight and it can't be implemented in a compatible way on top of the >

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd > > end > > up with people screaming about no hibernation support. > > There needs to be an

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
Hi Andrew, On Friday, 21 September 2007 03:41, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham > > <[EMAIL

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > Seems like good enough for -mm to me. (For the record, I do not think this is going to be hibernation-replacement any time soon. But it is functionality useful for other stuff -- dump memory and continue -- and yes it may be able to do hibernation in the long term. It really comes from

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > > > 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 >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Huang, Ying
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 22:01 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Index: linux-2.6.23-rc6/include/linux/kexec.h > > === > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc6.orig/include/linux/kexec.h 2007-09-20 > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Huang, Ying
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 20:55 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This patch implements the functionality of jumping between the kexeced > > kernel and the original kernel. > > > > A new reboot command named LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KJUMP is defined to > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Huang, Ying
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 20:55 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Huang, Ying [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This patch implements the functionality of jumping between the kexeced kernel and the original kernel. A new reboot command named LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KJUMP is defined to trigger the jumping

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Huang, Ying
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 22:01 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Huang, Ying [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Index: linux-2.6.23-rc6/include/linux/kexec.h === --- linux-2.6.23-rc6.orig/include/linux/kexec.h 2007-09-20

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! 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

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! Seems like good enough for -mm to me. (For the record, I do not think this is going to be hibernation-replacement any time soon. But it is functionality useful for other stuff -- dump memory and continue -- and yes it may be able to do hibernation in the long term. It really comes from

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd end up with people screaming about no hibernation support. There needs to be an implementation of

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
Hi Andrew, On Friday, 21 September 2007 03:41, Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 11:49, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! Seems like good enough for -mm to me. (For the record, I do not think this is going to be hibernation-replacement any time soon. But it is functionality useful for other stuff -- dump memory and continue -- and yes it may be

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default by openSUSE and it's also used by quite some Debian users, so we can't drop it overnight and it can't be implemented in a compatible way on top of the

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 13:58, Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default by openSUSE and it's also used by quite some Debian users, so we can't drop it overnight

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 22:18:19 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Friday, 21 September 2007 13:58, Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default by openSUSE and

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread huang ying
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd end up with people screaming about no hibernation

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread huang ying
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andrew, On Friday, 21 September 2007 03:41, Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 21

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote: On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [--snip--] No one has yet attacked the hard problem of coming up with

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread huang ying
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote: On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [--snip--]

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 17:02, huang ying wrote: On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote: On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote: On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [--snip--] No one has yet

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 20:11, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote: On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Nigel

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Alan Stern
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: Well, the problem is that apparently some systems (eg. my HP nx6325) expect us to execute the _PTS ACPI global control method before creating the image _and_ to execute acpi_enter_sleep_state(ACPI_STATE_S4) in order to finally put

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 21:45, Alan Stern wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: Well, the problem is that apparently some systems (eg. my HP nx6325) expect us to execute the _PTS ACPI global control method before creating the image _and_ to execute

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it. On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as reserved and yet the above happens. I think you have mentioned before, though, that ACPI is first initialized by the

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it. On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as reserved and yet the above happens. I

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it. On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, 21 September 2007 23:08, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Friday, 21 September 2007 23:08, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] The ACPI

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information accross the hibernation-resume cycle, so this need not be the same. All of my comments related to the case where S4 is not

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-21 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Saturday 22 September 2007 09:19:18 Kyle Moffett wrote: I think that in order for this to work, there would need to be some ABI whereby the resume-ing kernel can pass its entire ACPI state and a bunch of other ACPI-related device details to the resume-ed kernel, which I believe

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:57:26 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:41:06 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham > > > <[EMAIL

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Index: linux-2.6.23-rc6/include/linux/kexec.h > === > --- linux-2.6.23-rc6.orig/include/linux/kexec.h 2007-09-20 11:24:25.0 > +0800 > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc6/include/linux/kexec.h

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd end > up with people screaming about no hibernation support. There needs to be an implementation of hibernation based on kexec with return yes. > And it won't result in >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 12:45:57 Huang, Ying wrote: > On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 12:25 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Friday 21 September 2007 12:18:57 Huang, Ying wrote: > > > > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd > > end > > > > up

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This patch implements the functionality of jumping between the kexeced > kernel and the original kernel. > > A new reboot command named LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KJUMP is defined to > trigger the jumping to (executing) the new kernel and jumping back to > the

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Huang, Ying
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 12:25 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Friday 21 September 2007 12:18:57 Huang, Ying wrote: > > > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd > end > > > up with people screaming about no hibernation support. And it won't > > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 12:18:57 Huang, Ying wrote: > > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd end > > up with people screaming about no hibernation support. And it won't result in > > the complete removal of the existing hibernation code from the

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Huang, Ying
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 11:57 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:41:06 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 11:41:06 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Andrew. > > > > > > > > On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Andrew. > > > > > > On Thursday 20 September

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Andrew. > > > > On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Seems like good enough for -mm to me. > > > > > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Andrew. > > On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: > > Seems like good enough for -mm to me. > > > > Pavel > > Andrew, if

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi Andrew. On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: > Seems like good enough for -mm to me. > > Pavel Andrew, if I recall correctly, you said a while ago that you didn't want another hibernation

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > This patch implements the functionality of jumping between the kexeced > kernel and the original kernel. > > A new reboot command named LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KJUMP is defined to > trigger the jumping to (executing) the new kernel and jumping back to > the original kernel. > > To support

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! This patch implements the functionality of jumping between the kexeced kernel and the original kernel. A new reboot command named LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KJUMP is defined to trigger the jumping to (executing) the new kernel and jumping back to the original kernel. To support jumping

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi Andrew. On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: Seems like good enough for -mm to me. Pavel Andrew, if I recall correctly, you said a while ago that you didn't want another hibernation implementation

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andrew. On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: Seems like good enough for -mm to me. Pavel Andrew, if I recall

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andrew. On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: Seems like good enough for -mm to me.

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andrew. On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 11:41:06 Andrew Morton wrote: On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andrew. On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote:

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump

2007-09-20 Thread Huang, Ying
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 11:57 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 11:41:06 Andrew Morton wrote: On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andrew.

  1   2   >