Re: A kexec approach to hibernation

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > > To me, it seems a lot easier to get right than the current approaches.
> > 
> > Well, you are certainly welcome to create the patch. "suspend3" name
> > is still free, AFAICT.
> 
> I could be sneaky and call it "hibernate".  Probably nicer though to use the 
> name "kexec hibernate" to be later simplified to just "hibernate".
> 
> I was hoping that everyone would like the idea so much that they would rush to 
> implement it, so that I wouldn't have to try.  (I haven't written

That apparently did not happen, that much should be clear by now.

> > If _I_ were willing to add some runtime overhead to make hibernation
> > simpler, I'd just use some virtualization to do that... with added
> > advantage of "hibernate here, resume on different hw".
> 
> I don't believe there is going to be any runtime overhead.

64MB less memory seems like runtime overhead for me. If you know how
to do kexec without pre-reserving memory, I believe kexec/kdump team
will be interested.

> To some extent, (see some of the explanations I gave in the other e-mail I
> sent a few minutes ago in reply to Nigel) I think the kexec appraoch can be
> viewed as a cleaner variant of userspace hibernate.

It also can be viewed as vaporware.

								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html