Mark Lord <lkml@xxxxxx> writes: [snip] > Whoops.. wrong half of the script. > For TuxOnIce in 10 seconds, it does this: [snip] I'd argue that for most usage patterns, it doesn't matter all that much how long it takes to hibernate and power off the system. What really matter is that it is extremely reliable, and how fast it takes to resume. The reason for this is as follows: A typical usage pattern of hibernate on a laptop is to shut the lid, causing the system to start to hibernate, and to place the machine in the bag. This is fine, as long as you aren't too rough moving it into the bag, and the hibernation is extremely reliable (i.e. there is no chance that it fails to hibernate, and remains powered on.) Presumably some additional userspace logic could help here, like start beeping loudly if the hibernate fails, or perhaps just initiate a shut down, to avoid the machine overheating in the bag. Note that in this usage pattern, it doesn't matter how long it takes to hibernate, because you don't actually wait for it to finish. The only waiting occurs when you turn it on, and the resume path should be essentially exactly the same under kexec hibernate as with the existing hibernate. Thus, if kexec hibernate improves reliability (as it might, given that it eliminates the need for the freezer), it may be worth the slightly increased hibernate time. I think the actual amount of extra time it will take may be very small; a stripped down kernel may only take a second or two to initialize. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
