From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7416B009D for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:53:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B5E1281.7090700@suse.de> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:52:01 +0300 From: Alexey Starikovskiy MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH] MM / PM: Force GFP_NOIO during suspend/hibernation and resume References: <201001212121.50272.rjw@sisk.pl> <201001222219.15958.rjw@sisk.pl> <1264238962.16031.4.camel@maxim-laptop> <201001252249.18690.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <201001252249.18690.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Maxim Levitsky , KOSAKI Motohiro , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton List-ID: Rafael J. Wysocki D?D,N?DuN?: > On Saturday 23 January 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: >> 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. > > Did you have a chance to test it? > >> 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 > > I'm going to look at that later this week, although I'm not sure I can do more > than Alex about that. > > Rafael Rafael, If you can point to where one may insert callback to be called just before handing control to resume kernel, it may help... Regards, Alex. -- 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