From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 19 17:31: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mailtoaster2.pipeline.ch (mailtoaster2.pipeline.ch [62.48.0.71]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FCA37B80C for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:31:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oppermann@pipeline.ch) Received: (qmail 89509 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 00:33:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pipeline.ch) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by mailtoaster2.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with RC4-MD5 encrypted SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2000 00:33:32 -0000 Message-ID: <394EBB2F.8601C761@pipeline.ch> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:30:39 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Reilly Cc: Warner Losh , Poul-Henning Kamp , Mitsuru IWASAKI , 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 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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