Hi all.
With the start of a new year, I suppose it's a good time to think about
what I'd like to do with TuxOnIce this year and see what feedback I get.
First up, I'm thinking about closing the mailing lists and asking people
to use LKML instead for reporting issues and so on. I'm thinking about
this because it will help with allowing people who work on mainline to
see how stable (or otherwise!) TuxOnIce is now. It should also help when
(as often happens) bug reports aren't actually issues with the patch,
but with vanilla (ie drivers). Perhaps it will also help with whatever
effort I find time to make towards convincing Andrew that it really does
have significant advantages over [u]swsusp and kexec based hibernation.
Secondly, I'm planning on moving the website soonish. It's taken longer
than I planned because it will be sharing with another server I'm
maintaining, and it has taken longer than expected to find good hosting
for the other server (which was done first). Now that I'm happy with the
other server's state, I'm hoping to start shifting
suspend2.net/tuxonice.net soon.
For those who might be looking for hosting themselves, I'm using
slicehost. I initially tried GoDaddy, but had terrible service, problems
with draconian limits on the volume of outgoing email (1000/day by
default - useless if you're doing mailing lists) and unexpected,
unexplained delays in mail delivery through the SMTP delay they force
you to use. Slicehost, on the other hand, are terrific to deal with in
everyway. If you sign up with them because of this email, please
consider putting my email (nigel at suspend2.net) as the referrer - I
then get a discount on the cost of the hosting.
Third, regarding the patch itself, I'm taking my time in working towards
the 3.0 release. We don't have any major bugs with 3.0-rc3 reported, but
I have some things I want to complete before the final release:
* see it well tested;
* get a finished initial version of the cluster support;
* finish completing support for the new resume-from-other kernels
functionality that Rafael has added in 2.6.24. (We can resume from the
same kernel at the moment, but I need to convince myself that nosave
data is properly handled).
Regards,
Nigel
On Tuesday, 1 of January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi all.
Hi Nigel,
> With the start of a new year, I suppose it's a good time to think about
> what I'd like to do with TuxOnIce this year and see what feedback I get.
>
> First up, I'm thinking about closing the mailing lists and asking people
> to use LKML instead for reporting issues and so on. I'm thinking about
> this because it will help with allowing people who work on mainline to
> see how stable (or otherwise!) TuxOnIce is now. It should also help when
> (as often happens) bug reports aren't actually issues with the patch,
> but with vanilla (ie drivers).
I would also like the TuxOnIce issues related to drivers, ACPI, etc. to go to
one of the kernel-related lists, but I think linux-pm may be better for that
due to the much lower traffic.
> Perhaps it will also help with whatever effort I find time to make towards
> convincing Andrew that it really does have significant advantages over
> [u]swsusp and kexec based hibernation.
>
> Secondly, I'm planning on moving the website soonish. It's taken longer
> than I planned because it will be sharing with another server I'm
> maintaining, and it has taken longer than expected to find good hosting
> for the other server (which was done first). Now that I'm happy with the
> other server's state, I'm hoping to start shifting
> suspend2.net/tuxonice.net soon.
>
> For those who might be looking for hosting themselves, I'm using
> slicehost. I initially tried GoDaddy, but had terrible service, problems
> with draconian limits on the volume of outgoing email (1000/day by
> default - useless if you're doing mailing lists) and unexpected,
> unexplained delays in mail delivery through the SMTP delay they force
> you to use. Slicehost, on the other hand, are terrific to deal with in
> everyway. If you sign up with them because of this email, please
> consider putting my email (nigel at suspend2.net) as the referrer - I
> then get a discount on the cost of the hosting.
>
> Third, regarding the patch itself, I'm taking my time in working towards
> the 3.0 release. We don't have any major bugs with 3.0-rc3 reported, but
> I have some things I want to complete before the final release:
> * see it well tested;
> * get a finished initial version of the cluster support;
> * finish completing support for the new resume-from-other kernels
> functionality that Rafael has added in 2.6.24. (We can resume from the
> same kernel at the moment, but I need to convince myself that nosave
> data is properly handled).
Have you finished the support for freezing filesystems before freezing tasks
that we talked about some time ago?
Greetings,
Rafael
On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Third, regarding the patch itself, I'm taking my time in working towards
> the 3.0 release. We don't have any major bugs with 3.0-rc3 reported [...].
Well, I think I still have a bug, though it is possibly a mainline problem and
it's not a showstopper. After a suspend/resume cycle the reboot does not
work. The system hangs with "Rebooting system" (or similar). After that you
have to hard reset the system, which is not really a problem as filesystems
have been unmounted before. Reboot without a suspend cycle before and halt
with and without suspend cycle work without problems.
I'm using toi 3.0-rc3 with kernel 2.6.24-rc6 and beside the problem described
above I'm really happy with toi.
Happy new your to everybody!
--
Regards,
Chris
Hi.
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 of January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>> Hi all.
>
> Hi Nigel,
Gidday :)
>> With the start of a new year, I suppose it's a good time to think about
>> what I'd like to do with TuxOnIce this year and see what feedback I get.
>>
>> First up, I'm thinking about closing the mailing lists and asking people
>> to use LKML instead for reporting issues and so on. I'm thinking about
>> this because it will help with allowing people who work on mainline to
>> see how stable (or otherwise!) TuxOnIce is now. It should also help when
>> (as often happens) bug reports aren't actually issues with the patch,
>> but with vanilla (ie drivers).
>
> I would also like the TuxOnIce issues related to drivers, ACPI, etc. to go to
> one of the kernel-related lists, but I think linux-pm may be better for that
> due to the much lower traffic.
I guess that makes sense. I guess people can always be referred to LKML
for the issues where the appropriate person isn't on linux-pm.
>> Perhaps it will also help with whatever effort I find time to make towards
>> convincing Andrew that it really does have significant advantages over
>> [u]swsusp and kexec based hibernation.
>>
>> Secondly, I'm planning on moving the website soonish. It's taken longer
>> than I planned because it will be sharing with another server I'm
>> maintaining, and it has taken longer than expected to find good hosting
>> for the other server (which was done first). Now that I'm happy with the
>> other server's state, I'm hoping to start shifting
>> suspend2.net/tuxonice.net soon.
>>
>> For those who might be looking for hosting themselves, I'm using
>> slicehost. I initially tried GoDaddy, but had terrible service, problems
>> with draconian limits on the volume of outgoing email (1000/day by
>> default - useless if you're doing mailing lists) and unexpected,
>> unexplained delays in mail delivery through the SMTP delay they force
>> you to use. Slicehost, on the other hand, are terrific to deal with in
>> everyway. If you sign up with them because of this email, please
>> consider putting my email (nigel at suspend2.net) as the referrer - I
>> then get a discount on the cost of the hosting.
>>
>> Third, regarding the patch itself, I'm taking my time in working towards
>> the 3.0 release. We don't have any major bugs with 3.0-rc3 reported, but
>> I have some things I want to complete before the final release:
>> * see it well tested;
>> * get a finished initial version of the cluster support;
>> * finish completing support for the new resume-from-other kernels
>> functionality that Rafael has added in 2.6.24. (We can resume from the
>> same kernel at the moment, but I need to convince myself that nosave
>> data is properly handled).
>
> Have you finished the support for freezing filesystems before freezing tasks
> that we talked about some time ago?
Hmm. I've had too many things going through my little brain since then.
What I currently have is support for freezing fuse filesystems
separately. It looks like:
int freeze_processes(void)
{
int error;
printk("Stopping fuse filesystems.\n");
freeze_filesystems(FS_FREEZER_FUSE);
freezer_state = FREEZER_FILESYSTEMS_FROZEN;
printk("Freezing user space processes ... ");
error = try_to_freeze_tasks(FREEZER_USER_SPACE);
if (error)
goto Exit;
printk("done.\n");
sys_sync();
printk("Stopping normal filesystems.\n");
freeze_filesystems(FS_FREEZER_NORMAL);
freezer_state = FREEZER_USERSPACE_FROZEN;
printk("Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... ");
error = try_to_freeze_tasks(FREEZER_KERNEL_THREADS);
if (error)
goto Exit;
printk("done.");
freezer_state = FREEZER_FULLY_ON;
Exit:
BUG_ON(in_atomic());
printk("\n");
return error;
}
(I'm not yet worrying about ext3 on fuse or such like, but it shouldn't
be hard to extend the model to do that).
Nigel
Hi Christian.
Christian Hesse wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>> Third, regarding the patch itself, I'm taking my time in working towards
>> the 3.0 release. We don't have any major bugs with 3.0-rc3 reported [...].
>
> Well, I think I still have a bug, though it is possibly a mainline problem and
> it's not a showstopper. After a suspend/resume cycle the reboot does not
> work. The system hangs with "Rebooting system" (or similar). After that you
> have to hard reset the system, which is not really a problem as filesystems
> have been unmounted before. Reboot without a suspend cycle before and halt
> with and without suspend cycle work without problems.
Just to clarify, do you mean rebooting after writing an image, or
shutting down and rebooting? It could be that there's some change to the
semantics in 2.6.24 that I haven't noticed yet.
> I'm using toi 3.0-rc3 with kernel 2.6.24-rc6 and beside the problem described
> above I'm really happy with toi.
>
> Happy new your to everybody!
And to you too!
Nigel
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi Christian.
>
> Christian Hesse wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> >> Third, regarding the patch itself, I'm taking my time in working towards
> >> the 3.0 release. We don't have any major bugs with 3.0-rc3 reported
> >> [...].
> >
> > Well, I think I still have a bug, though it is possibly a mainline
> > problem and it's not a showstopper. After a suspend/resume cycle the
> > reboot does not work. The system hangs with "Rebooting system" (or
> > similar). After that you have to hard reset the system, which is not
> > really a problem as filesystems have been unmounted before. Reboot
> > without a suspend cycle before and halt with and without suspend cycle
> > work without problems.
>
> Just to clarify, do you mean rebooting after writing an image, or
> shutting down and rebooting? It could be that there's some change to the
> semantics in 2.6.24 that I haven't noticed yet.
I speak about shutting down and rebooting. I have not used reboot after
writing an image for a long time now. Will test what happens in this case.
I had the issue before 2.6.24(-rc) already, thought I don't know whether there
were times it worked. I use it way too seldom.
--
Regards,
Chris
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Christian Hesse wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi Christian.
> >
> > Christian Hesse wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > >> Third, regarding the patch itself, I'm taking my time in working towards
> > >> the 3.0 release. We don't have any major bugs with 3.0-rc3 reported
> > >> [...].
> > >
> > > Well, I think I still have a bug, though it is possibly a mainline
> > > problem and it's not a showstopper. After a suspend/resume cycle the
> > > reboot does not work. The system hangs with "Rebooting system" (or
> > > similar). After that you have to hard reset the system, which is not
> > > really a problem as filesystems have been unmounted before. Reboot
> > > without a suspend cycle before and halt with and without suspend cycle
> > > work without problems.
> >
> > Just to clarify, do you mean rebooting after writing an image, or
> > shutting down and rebooting? It could be that there's some change to the
> > semantics in 2.6.24 that I haven't noticed yet.
>
> I speak about shutting down and rebooting. I have not used reboot after
> writing an image for a long time now. Will test what happens in this case.
>
> I had the issue before 2.6.24(-rc) already, thought I don't know whether there
> were times it worked. I use it way too seldom.
Well, this is similar to http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6655 ,
which definitely is a mainline problem (still pending).
Greetings,
Rafael\
Hi Nigel,
I do agree with all your plans ;)
I'm also happy with the current version of tuxonice.
The main question is :
"What is the status of merging into mainline" (with or without any
additional patch from other suspend patch).
I have seen quite a lot of mails about this topic on the lmkl in 2007... ;)
Xavier
> Hi all.
>
> With the start of a new year, I suppose it's a good time to think about
> what I'd like to do with TuxOnIce this year and see what feedback I get.
>
> First up, I'm thinking about closing the mailing lists and asking people
> to use LKML instead for reporting issues and so on. I'm thinking about
> this because it will help with allowing people who work on mainline to
> see how stable (or otherwise!) TuxOnIce is now. It should also help when
> (as often happens) bug reports aren't actually issues with the patch,
> but with vanilla (ie drivers). Perhaps it will also help with whatever
> effort I find time to make towards convincing Andrew that it really does
> have significant advantages over [u]swsusp and kexec based hibernation.
>
> Secondly, I'm planning on moving the website soonish. It's taken longer
> than I planned because it will be sharing with another server I'm
> maintaining, and it has taken longer than expected to find good hosting
> for the other server (which was done first). Now that I'm happy with the
> other server's state, I'm hoping to start shifting
> suspend2.net/tuxonice.net soon.
>
> For those who might be looking for hosting themselves, I'm using
> slicehost. I initially tried GoDaddy, but had terrible service, problems
> with draconian limits on the volume of outgoing email (1000/day by
> default - useless if you're doing mailing lists) and unexpected,
> unexplained delays in mail delivery through the SMTP delay they force
> you to use. Slicehost, on the other hand, are terrific to deal with in
> everyway. If you sign up with them because of this email, please
> consider putting my email (nigel at suspend2.net) as the referrer - I
> then get a discount on the cost of the hosting.
>
> Third, regarding the patch itself, I'm taking my time in working towards
> the 3.0 release. We don't have any major bugs with 3.0-rc3 reported, but
> I have some things I want to complete before the final release:
> * see it well tested;
> * get a finished initial version of the cluster support;
> * finish completing support for the new resume-from-other kernels
> functionality that Rafael has added in 2.6.24. (We can resume from the
> same kernel at the moment, but I need to convince myself that nosave
> data is properly handled).
>
> Regards,
>
> Nigel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Suspend2-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.tuxonice.net/mailman/listinfo/suspend2-devel
>
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Christian Hesse wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi Christian.
> > >
> > > Christian Hesse wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > >> Third, regarding the patch itself, I'm taking my time in working
> > > >> towards the 3.0 release. We don't have any major bugs with 3.0-rc3
> > > >> reported [...].
> > > >
> > > > Well, I think I still have a bug, though it is possibly a mainline
> > > > problem and it's not a showstopper. After a suspend/resume cycle the
> > > > reboot does not work. The system hangs with "Rebooting system" (or
> > > > similar). After that you have to hard reset the system, which is not
> > > > really a problem as filesystems have been unmounted before. Reboot
> > > > without a suspend cycle before and halt with and without suspend
> > > > cycle work without problems.
> > >
> > > Just to clarify, do you mean rebooting after writing an image, or
> > > shutting down and rebooting? It could be that there's some change to
> > > the semantics in 2.6.24 that I haven't noticed yet.
> >
> > I speak about shutting down and rebooting. I have not used reboot after
> > writing an image for a long time now. Will test what happens in this
> > case.
Reboot after writing image does not work, too. The system hangs with "Ready to
reboot".
> > I had the issue before 2.6.24(-rc) already, thought I don't know whether
> > there were times it worked. I use it way too seldom.
>
> Well, this is similar to http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6655 ,
> which definitely is a mainline problem (still pending).
Yes, that sound like my problem. I will test the patches and keep the bug
report in focus.
--
Regards,
Chris