From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CCFB66B006A for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:42:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o0M1gEgq015777 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:42:14 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E9F45DE4E for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:42:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E3045DE4F for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:42:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117201DB8040 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:42:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63BE1DB803C for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:42:13 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Force GFP_NOIO during suspend/resume (was: Re: [linux-pm] Memory allocations in .suspend became very unreliable) In-Reply-To: <20100122100155.6C03.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <201001212121.50272.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100122100155.6C03.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20100122103830.6C09.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:42:12 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Maxim Levitsky , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton List-ID: > > > 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. -- 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