Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752676Ab0AQN1O (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:27:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751930Ab0AQN1O (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:27:14 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:40194 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751432Ab0AQN1N (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:27:13 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Force GFP_NOIO during suspend/resume (was: Re: [linux-pm] Memory allocations in .suspend became very unreliable) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:27:27 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.3 (Linux/2.6.33-rc4-rjw; KDE/4.3.3; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Maxim Levitsky , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , "linux-mm" , Andrew Morton , Benjamin Herrenschmidt References: <1263549544.3112.10.camel@maxim-laptop> <201001170138.37283.rjw@sisk.pl> <201001170224.36267.oliver@neukum.org> In-Reply-To: <201001170224.36267.oliver@neukum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201001171427.27954.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1704 Lines: 40 On Sunday 17 January 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Sonntag, 17. Januar 2010 01:38:37 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > > Now having said that, we've been considering a change that will turn all > > > GFP_KERNEL allocations into GFP_NOIO during suspend/resume, so perhaps I'll > > > prepare a patch to do that and let's see what people think. > > > > If I didn't confuse anything (which is likely, because it's a bit late here > > now), the patch below should do the trick. I have only checked that it doesn't > > break compilation, so please take it with a grain of salt. > > > > Comments welcome. > > I think this is a bad idea as it makes the mm subsystem behave differently > in the runtime and in the whole system cases. s/runtime/suspend/ ? Yes it will, but why exactly shouldn't it? System suspend/resume _is_ a special situation anyway. > What's so hard about telling people that they need to use GFP_NOIO in > suspend() and resume()? Memory allocations are made for other purposes during suspend/resume too. For example, new kernel threads may be created (for async suspend/resume among other things). Besides, the fact that you tell people to do something doesn't necessary imply that they will listen. :-) I have discussed that with Ben for a couple of times and we have generally agreed that memory allocation problems during suspend/resume are not avoidable in general unless we disable __GFP_FS and __GFP_IO at the high level. Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/