From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACA55600798 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:24:55 -0500 (EST) From: 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 10:25:37 +0100 References: <1263549544.3112.10.camel@maxim-laptop> <201001181800.38574.oliver@neukum.org> <201001182141.49907.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <201001182141.49907.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201001191025.37579.oliver@neukum.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Maxim Levitsky , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Benjamin Herrenschmidt List-ID: 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() Regards Oliver -- 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