From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B147D6B006A for ; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:29:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so1951602fxm.11 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:29:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH] MM / PM: Force GFP_NOIO during suspend/hibernation and resume From: Maxim Levitsky In-Reply-To: <201001222219.15958.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <201001212121.50272.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100122103830.6C09.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <1264155067.15930.4.camel@maxim-laptop> <201001222219.15958.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:29:22 +0200 Message-ID: <1264238962.16031.4.camel@maxim-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 22:19 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday 22 January 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 10:42 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > > > Probably we have multiple option. but I don't think GFP_NOIO is good > > > > > > option. It assume the system have lots non-dirty cache memory and it isn't > > > > > > guranteed. > > > > > > > > > > Basically nothing is guaranteed in this case. However, does it actually make > > > > > things _worse_? > > > > > > > > Hmm.. > > > > Do you mean we don't need to prevent accidental suspend failure? > > > > Perhaps, I did misunderstand your intention. If you think your patch solve > > > > this this issue, I still disagree. but If you think your patch mitigate > > > > the pain of this issue, I agree it. I don't have any reason to oppose your > > > > first patch. > > > > > > One question. Have anyone tested Rafael's $subject patch? > > > Please post test result. if the issue disapper by the patch, we can > > > suppose the slowness is caused by i/o layer. > > > > I did. > > > > As far as I could see, patch does solve the problem I described. > > > > Does it affect speed of suspend? I can't say for sure. It seems to be > > the same. > > Thanks for testing. I'll test that too, soon. Just to note that I left my hibernate loop run overnight, and now I am posting from my notebook after it did 590 hibernate cycles. Offtopic, but Note that to achieve that I had to stop using global acpi hardware lock. I tried all kinds of things, but for now it just hands from time to time. See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14668 Best regards, Maxim Levitsky -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org