Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Pittman <> | Subject | Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway | Date | Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:45:17 +1000 |
| |
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:09:24PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Thursday, 5 July 2007 15:46, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> > I have a model for STD that avoids the need to freeze the entirity of >> > userspace, but I need to find some more time to flesh it out. >> >> You can just describe it, as far as I'm concerned. :-) > > The basic model is that nobody's really described a use-case where we > actually care about restoring system state. What people want is to be > able to restore application state. So, arguably, what we want isn't to > save the entire kernel state and application state in one go because we > can reconstruct a huge amount of that afterwards.
[...]
> I've mocked up a basic implementation using cryopid, but it's somewhat > limited by the lack of support for sockets. I'd like to move more of > the smarts into the kernel (Hurray, checkpointing!) and then see how > much hardware support ends up horifically broken.
You might want to look at the checkpoint / migration support in the OpenVZ kernel in relation to this. That does work to dump the state of a running "virtual environment" complete with applications to disk, move it to another running kernel and restore the content.
That might, perhaps, help with the prototype of this?
Regards, Daniel - 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/
| |