From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 20 0:28: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from blizzard.sabbo.net (blizzard.sabbo.net [193.193.218.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702B237BC41; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:27:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from vic.sabbo.net (vic.sabbo.net [193.193.218.106]) by blizzard.sabbo.net (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02630; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:26:35 +0300 (EEST) Received: from FreeBSD.org (big_brother.vega.com [192.168.1.1]) by vic.sabbo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03765; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:27:16 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <394F1CCC.45B8A2C3@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:27:08 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Vega International Capital X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: uk,ru,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Smith Cc: Andrew Reilly , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ACPI project progress report References: <200006200040.RAA10386@mass.osd.bsdi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mike Smith 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.] > > > > 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? (*) > > The real issue here is persistent system state across the S4 suspend; ie. > leaving applications open, etc. IMO this isn't really something worth a > lot of effort to us, and it has a lot of additional complications for a > "server-class" operating system in that you have to worry about network > connections from other systems, not just _to_ other systems. Why then brand commercial vendors have such capability in their "server-class" operating system for a long time? Particularly HP's PA-RISC servers does have it, at least I remember such feature in the old 30MHz systems which I managed several years ago (the systems was shipped with small internal battery, which in the case of power failure was used to dump system to the disk). -Maxim. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message