WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: Q: Clarification about extra option ..Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] pv

To: rshriram@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Q: Clarification about extra option ..Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] pvops: Make suspend work when CONFIG_SUSPEND=n
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 21:07:55 +0100
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Frank Pan <frankpzh@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:08:17 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <AANLkTi=BbpcQANnX7=a2m4Ze-BkkTU_eQj9sp=8862f_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <AANLkTikcbVEXdRsS1WYCNTinuYLcmiJ1dz2ReS18_A+3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110304182602.GA4004@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <AANLkTi=BbpcQANnX7=a2m4Ze-BkkTU_eQj9sp=8862f_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.38-rc7+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; )
On Friday, March 04, 2011, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > .. snip..
> >> >>  Someone suggested creating a new user visible hibernate symbol that 
> >> >> would
> >> >> solve this issue and make the main hibernate logic depend on this 
> >> >> symbol rather
> >> >> than the HIBERNATE symbol. I could certainly spin up a patch for that 
> >> >> but nobody
> >> >> seemed to have reached a conclusion.
> >> >
> >> > Please do. I was under the understanding that we were waiting for a 
> >> > victi^H^H^Hvolunteer
> >> > to implement that.
> >> >
> >> > That was the only thing gatting your patchset going in.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I certainly would have long time ago but for this comment in the thread
> >> "xen: fix XEN_SAVE_RESTORE Kconfig dependencies"
> >>
> >> Rafael:
> >>  I think we can introduce CONFIG_HIBERNATE_INTERFACE that will be 
> >> user-visible
> >> option instead of CONFIG_HIBERNATION and will select the latter.  Then,
> >> CONFIG_XEN_SAVE_RESTORE will also be able to select CONFIG_HIBERNATION 
> >> without
> >> building the hibernate interface in, which will prevent user space from 
> >> being
> >> confused, but that will cause too much code to be built anyway.
> >>
> >> If by "too much code to be built", he meant the increase in kernel
> >> image size, then its not much of a deal :P.
> >> But if he meant, "too much code rework", then it is an issue.
> >
> > The idea here is that the /sys/power/state won't be exposed with the "disk"
> > option.
> >
> >>
> >> But IMO, the CONFIG_HIBERNATE_INTERFACE needs to go in,
> >> only in the main hibernation initiator logic, as we still need the
> >> CONFIG_HIBERNATE
> >> pieces of every driver anyway (their freeze/thaw routines).
> >
> > Right. The idea here is to seperate the sysfs interface to be behind
> > another config option. So you can still enable the hibernate kernel code
> > but without exposing it to the userland.
> >
> > Rafael,
> >
> > That is the general idea, right?
> >
> >
> 
> I was thinking along the lines of
> config HIBERNATION
>  def_bool n
> 
> config HIBERNATION_INTERFACE
>  select HIBERNATE

select HIBERNATION

> config XEN_SAVE_RESTORE
>  select HIBERNATION
> 
> in kernel/power/Makefile
> obj-$(CONFIG_HIBERNATION_INTERFACE)  += hibernate.o snapshot.o swap.o \
> 
>   user.o block_io.o
> 
> Will this be sufficient to prevent unnecessary code from being built?

Not all of it, but the majority.

> Or, is this oversimplified file exclusion totally wrong and I have to
> dig deeper?

That can be done in the future over time.

> From a cursory glance, these files seem to be dealing solely with SWSUSP which
> roughly does the following:
>  1. freezing devices (using pm_op functions in main.c)
>  2. saving memory to swap
>  3. thawing on resume (using pm_op functions in main.c)
> 
> XEN_SAVE_RESTORE only needs steps 1 & 3.

That's correct.

Thanks,
Rafael

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>