Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755500Ab0ASUgw (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:36:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755487Ab0ASUgw (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:36:52 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:57731 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752088Ab0ASUgv (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:36:51 -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: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:37:35 +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> <201001182141.49907.rjw@sisk.pl> <201001191025.37579.oliver@neukum.org> In-Reply-To: <201001191025.37579.oliver@neukum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201001192137.35232.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1617 Lines: 36 On Tuesday 19 January 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Montag, 18. Januar 2010 21:41:49 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > On Monday 18 January 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, 17. Januar 2010 14:55:55 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > > > +void mm_force_noio_allocations(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + /* Wait for all slowpath allocations using the old mask to complete */ > > > > + down_write(&gfp_allowed_mask_sem); > > > > + saved_gfp_allowed_mask = gfp_allowed_mask; > > > > + gfp_allowed_mask &= ~(__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS); > > > > + up_write(&gfp_allowed_mask_sem); > > > > +} > > > > > > In addition to this you probably want to exhaust all memory reserves > > > before you fail a memory allocation > > > > I'm not really sure what you mean. > > Forget it, it was foolish. Instead there's a different problem. > Suppose we are tight on memory. The problem is that we must not > exhaust all memory. If we are really out of memory we may be unable > to satisfy memory allocations in resume() That doesn't make things any worse than the are already. If we block on I/O forever during resume, the gross result is pretty much the same. That said, Maxim reported that in his test case the mm subsystem apparently attempted to use I/O even if there was a plenty of free memory available and I'd like prevent _that_ from happening. 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/