On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 00:39 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > [Restored CCs.] > > Oh, sorry. > > > On Monday 25 May 2009, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 23:43 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Monday 25 May 2009, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 01:43 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 00:46 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday 08 May 2009, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 16:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Friday 08 May 2009, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > > > > > > And the code includes some fundamental differences. I freeze processes > > > > > > > > > and prepare the whole image before saving anything or doing an atomic > > > > > > > > > copy whereas you just free memory before doing the atomic copy. You save > > > > > > > > > everything in one part whereas I save the image in two parts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO the differences are not that fundamental. The whole problem boils down > > > > > > > > to using the same data structures for memory management and I think we can > > > > > > > > reach an agreement here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we might be able to agree on using the same data structures, but > > > > > > > I'm not so sure about algorithms - I think you're underestimating the > > > > > > > differences here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, which algorithms do you have in mind in particular? > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the slow reply - just starting to catch up after time away. > > > > > > > > NP > > > > > > > > > The main difference is the order of doing things. TuxOnIce prepares the > > > > > image after freezing processes and before the atomic copy. It doesn't > > > > > just do that so that it can store a complete image of memory. It also > > > > > does it because once processes are frozen, the only thing that's going > > > > > to allocate storage is TuxOnIce, > > > > > > > > This is quite strong statement. Is it provable? > > > > > > Yes - just account for memory carefully. Check that everything that gets > > > allocated by hibernation code (or code it calls) gets freed and compare > > > the amount of memory free at the start of a cycle with the amount at the > > > end. I haven't done it for a while, but it was perfectly doable. > > > > Well, this really doesn't answer my question. > > > > What you're saying is basically "we can verify experimentally that in the > > majority of cases the statement holds", but I doesn't really mean "it always > > holds", which I'd like to be sure of. > > Well, we can never be sure that it always holds or will always hold, > because we're playing on a constantly changing pitch. Exactly. > > So, in fact, we'll need to think about safeguards that may be necessary in case > > it doesn't hold in some strange, presumably very rare and very improbable > > situation. > > > > Assume for a while that there is a situation in which something other than > > us is allocating storage during hibernation. How can we protect ourselves from > > that? > > The possibilities I see are: > > 1) Assume we can't know exactly how much but can allow a ball-park > figure (current method) > 2) Implement a means by which components that might allocate memory can > tell us how much they might allocate (currently used internally by > tuxonice - part of the modular design). I'd love to see this for the > drivers' suspend code. The drivers' suspend code is too late, we need to know that before the drivers' suspend callbacks are run. > > > > > and the only things that are going to allocate RAM are TuxOnIce and the > > > > > drivers' suspend routines. > > > > > > > > Hmm. What about kernel threads that are not frozen? > > > > > > As I said above, I haven't done it for a while, but when I did, they did > > > not seem to allocate any memory - at least not for any significant > > > period of time. Even if they do, small amounts can also be covered by > > > the allowance for memory for drivers' suspend routines. > > > > I don't think experimental verification is really sufficient in this case too. > > > > Either we're sure that something is impossible, in which case we need to know > > exactly why it is impossible, or we aren't, in which case we should do > > something to protect ourselves in case it _does_ happen after all. > > I agree - that's the extra pages allowance. We need to think also about > the consequences if our assumptions aren't met: retry / abort etc (not > oops!) > > > > > > The drivers' routines are pretty consistent - once you've seen how much is > > > > > used for one invocation, you can add a small margin and call that the > > > > > allowance to use for all future invocations. The amount of memory used > > > > > by the hibernation code is also entirely predictable - once you know the > > > > > characteristics of the system as it stands (ie with processes frozen), > > > > > you know how much you're going to need for the atomic copy and for doing > > > > > I/O. If you find that something is too big, all you need to do is thaw > > > > > kernel threads and free some memory until you fit within constraints or > > > > > (heaven forbid!) find that you're not getting anyway and so want to give > > > > > up on hibernating all together. > > > > > > > > > > If, on the other hand, you do the drivers suspend etc and then look to > > > > > see what state you're in, well you might need to thaw drivers etc in > > > > > order to free memory before trying again. It's more expensive. Right now > > > > > you're just giving up in that case - yes, you could retry too instead of > > > > > giving up completely, but it's better IMHO to seek to get things right > > > > > before suspending drivers. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, before I forget to mention and you ask - how to know what allowance > > > > > for the drivers? I use a sysfs entry - the user then just needs to see > > > > > what's needed on their first attempt, set up a means of putting that > > > > > value in the sysfs file in future (eg /etc/hibernate/tuxonice.conf) and > > > > > then forget about it. > > > > > > > > OK, this is reasonable. > > > > > > > > Still, I think your approach is based on some assumptions that need to be > > > > verified, so that either we are 100% sure they are satisfied, or we have some > > > > safeguards in place in case they aren't. > > > > > > Well, the 'extra pages allowance' as I call the memory for drivers' > > > suspend routines is the safeguard. I'll see if I can find some time to > > > get some real-life numbers to prove my argument. > > > > I don't really think it's a good idea to focus on testing in this case, because > > our testing will only cover several specific configurations. > > > > Instead, I'd like to design things so that the assumptions are verified as we > > progress and something special is done if they happen to be not satisfied. > > If you think they are almost surely satisfied in all practically relevant > > situations, that "something" may be to fail hibernation and roll back to the > > working state. If it never happens in practice, that's just fine. Still, IMO > > we can't just say "this never happens" without saying why _exactly_ this is the > > case. > > I certainly agree with trying to make things as predictable and > verifiable as possible, but we're not going to achieve that aim > perfectly here - there are too many other factors in play. > > The best I can say is that using an extra pages allowance has worked for > myself and TuxOnIce users for at least a few years. Once you've done a > cycle or two, you know what to expect. I know this isn't absolute > certainty, but as I said above, we're interacting with other kernel > components that are blackboxes - at least at the moment. Short term, I agree. Long term we need something more reliable and not requiring the user input. Best, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
