Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi Nick.
> 
> On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 21:40, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 

>>I've seen try to do order 8 allocations or something almost as
>>ridiculous. Atomic too.
> 
> 
> I believe you. But Bernard and I are dealing with Suspend2.
> 

Sorry, indeed you are. My mistake.

> 
>>Well, correction, I've seen _reports_. Never tried swsusp myself.
> 
> 
> :>
> 
>>I don't think a few order 0 and 1 allocations would do any harm
>>because otherwise every man and his dog would be having problems.
> 
> 
> Yes. Suspend2 does allocate a large number of zero order allocations for
> submitting I/O, but again, they're all freed prior to thawing frozen
> processes.
> 

Hmm. I wouldn't have thought that should be a problem. Obviously
something is just irritating a bug somewhere.

> 
>>>>Thanks for the report... I'll come up with something for you to try
>>>>in the next day or so.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm flying to America on Monday, but I'll try to keep up with the
>>>progress in this and do anything I can to help.
>>>
>>
>>It is basically a problem with one of my patches. I should be able
>>to fix it (although fixing swsusp would be nice too :) ).
> 
> 
> :> Nevertheless, if there's something suspend2 related I should fix...
> 

I wouldn't suspect so, but we'll see... How do I get my hands on
suspend2?

Also, Bernard, can you try running with the following patch and
see what output it gives when you reproduce the problem?

Thanks a lot,
Nick