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 B110C6B006A for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:33:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH] PM: Force GFP_NOIO during suspend/resume (was: Re: Memory allocations in .suspend became very unreliable) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:34:11 +0100 References: <1263745267.2162.42.camel@barrios-desktop> <201001182206.36365.rjw@sisk.pl> <201001191015.00470.oliver@neukum.org> In-Reply-To: <201001191015.00470.oliver@neukum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201001192134.11518.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Oliver Neukum Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Minchan Kim , Maxim Levitsky , linux-mm , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Tuesday 19 January 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Montag, 18. Januar 2010 22:06:36 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > I was concerned about another problem, though, which is what happens if the > > suspend process runs in parallel with a memory allocation that started earlier > > and happens to do some I/O. I that case the suspend process doesn't know > > about the I/O done by the mm subsystem and may disturb it in principle. > > How could this happen? Who would allocate that memory? > Tasks won't be frozen while they are allocating memory. The majority of kernel threads are not freezable, but I agree it's rather low risk. Rafael -- 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