Hi Justin,
On 01-10-18 16:14, Justin Forbes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Fedora kernel team,
On the Fedora desktop list there has been a discussion about
systemd now offering a new suspend-then-hibernate option and
gnome-settings-daemon's media-keys plugin using this when
the power-button gets pressed and systemd saying this is
available on the system.
What this does is suspend the system normally and set
a RTC wakeup 3 hours in the future, then when the RTC wake
happens it hibernates the system.
As discussed on the desktop list this is not really desirable
as default behavior for F29 (and later) since the hibernate
code is not really something which gets used enough to be
well tested and is really not something which we can support.
So after that the discussion has gone in the direction of
how to disable the new suspend-then-hibernate behavior.
Lennart made a really interesting observation here, systemd
is just proxying if "cat /sys/power/disk" indicates that
hibernate is supported.
No, that is not what systemd is doing. The kernel provides a
mechanism, it does absolutely nothing with that mechanism unless told
to do so. What systemd is actually doing is creating a policy around
that mechanism.
systemd is really *not* creating policy here, it has a DBUS API
call called CanHibernate which really just proxies what the kernel
advertises.
What is new is that GNOME (g-s-d) now uses it be default through
by choosing suspend-then-hibernate as suspend action when
hibernation is available.
So if we really don't want to support hibernation as a normal
option, while still allowing adventurous user to use it, what
really should happen is for the kernel to stop advertising
hibernate support. Thinking about this I agree, if we say
that we cannot support it, the kernel really should not be
advertising support for it by default.
"We have decided that the policy created is not desirable, so we want
to disable the mechanism"
Default to off is a different thing then disabling this.
TBH I'm a bit surprised about your objections against this:
1) We all seem to agree that this is something which may or
may not work, but is not something which we want to advertise
as a "supported" Fedora feature
2) Given 1) we also all agree that we should not use it
by default
3) If we should not use it by default then shouldn't the
feature default to off ? That is all what is being suggested,
basically the equivalent of adding "nohibernate" to the
kernel commandline by default.
I expect the kernel changes for this to be about 3 lines of
actual code (+a 15 lines or so Kconfig addition) and I expect
this to go upstream without much issues as this seems like
an entirely reasonable thing to do.
Reading further along the discussion you say that if this
were a new feature you would likely agree to defaulting it
to off. But since this has been there for years we should
not change it ? That seems like a weak argument to me, we
have always been doing this in a sub-optimal way so lets
continue doing this in a sub-optimal way ?
I agree that we should not change it in the middle of a
Fedora cycle. Hence I wrote:
Against:
Currently we do have some users using hibernation without
adding any options to the kernel commandline. These users
will have to now add "hibernate=yes" to their kernel commandline.
I'm thinking that yes we want this, but maybe this needs to
go through the change process for proper communication, so for
F29 we need another fix, and we can do this for F30?
I believe that if we put this through the change process,
we can make sure that we properly communicate the need to add
"hinernate=yes" to the kernel commandline for people who use
it and want to keep using it.
I also expect this to, if anything, lower the load for the Fedora
kernel team, since it avoids users enabling hibernation without
really knowing what they are doing and then filing bugs as a result
of this. E.g.:
* ATM in F28 hibernation is a simple click in gnome-tweaks away.
* Even if we revert the GNOME change which triggered this discussion
many other DEs will still advertise hibernate support in some way.
Can you please elaborate a bit on your objections against this?
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
