Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:30:39 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@telehouse.ch> To: Andrew Reilly <areilly@nsw.bigpond.net.au> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.freebsd.org>, bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE, acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org, dcs@newsguy.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ACPI project progress report Message-ID: <394EBB2F.8601C761@pipeline.ch> References: <20000620085531.A38839@gurney.reilly.home> <200006191630.KAA60652@harmony.village.org> <45525.961432574@critter.freebsd.dk> <20000620085531.A38839@gurney.reilly.home> <200006192301.RAA63461@harmony.village.org> <20000620101608.A38965@gurney.reilly.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Reilly wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:01:46PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <20000620085531.A38839@gurney.reilly.home> "Andrew Reilly" writes: > > : That sounds way too hard. Why not restrict suspend activity to > > : user-level processes and bring the kernel/drivers back up through > > : a regular boot process? At least that way the hardware and drivers > > : will know what they are all up to, even if some of it has changed > > : in the mean time. > > > > Takes too long... That's shutdown, not S4. > > Yes. But what is the difference, really? As far as the > hardware is concerned, it's being booted. If that process can > be sped up by using the "S4" mechanisms, why can't they be > applied to a regular boot process too? [I'm thinking about a > kernel equivelant of the "clean shutdown" flag on file systems.] If you resume a W2k system from hibernation it will basically boot but with restoring from swap what was running before. > Fundamentally, is there no way to get the kernel and drivers to > go through a full boot phase in a small fraction of the time > that it takes to repopulate 64M of RAM from disk? (*) > > I'm concerned about trying to take short-cuts with booting, > because I've seen both the Toshiba laptop that I'm using now, > and my mother's HP desktop system hang horribly hard when they > should have been coming out of suspend. (Both W'98.) > > I like the idea that my laptop will save power by shutting down > after a while, but I don't want to get into trouble if I forget > whether I was docked or not, or whether the floppy was plugged > in or not, when next I turn it on. > > (*) Speaking of which: why are we considering doing process > dumps into a _different_ swap-ish partition, instead of just > ensuring that all processes are sleeping in the normal swap > partition? If that was done, then they would just page > themselves back in as needed, on wake-up. Yes, W2k pages everything out on hibernate and swaps it in back again when you start using an application that was running before. It's pretty evident once you've used W2k on a Laptop, you can really feel it. > Sorry for blathering. This is just really interesting stuff. It is! :) -- Andre To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?394EBB2F.8601C761>