linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #13058] First hibernation attempt fails

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49E8C06A.5080605@tuffmail.co.uk>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:46:18 +0100
From:	Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #13058] First hibernation attempt fails

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>   
>> As another datapoint:  I tried blindly applying the commit to 2.6.29. 
>> The resulting kernel was able to hibernate fine the first time.
>>     
>
> Yeah, so it's not that commit per se that causes it. I bet it needs all 
> the IO scheduler changes too - and even when it does that, the end result 
> probably is really just a timing change.
>
>   
>> I'm going to be annoying and try something slightly different.  In
>> theory, I should be able to find the "first bad commit" where
>> cherry-picking 1faa16d22 causes a problem.
>>     
>
> Just for fun, try this one first and see if it makes any difference.
>
> Maybe the whole "swappiness=0" part was intentional. And maybe it wasn't. 
> This is one trivial patch. Maybe it makes your machine blow up. Who knows?
>
> There are other differences in the shrink_all_memory() path wrt the normal 
> memory freeing paths, but they are way more subtle. So I'm suggesting 
> tryign this not becasue I think it's "The Bug(tm)", but because it's an 
> easy test to make, and maybe it makes a difference.
>
> 		Linus
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 39fdfb1..d3595ed 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2113,6 +2113,8 @@ unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_pages)
>  	struct scan_control sc = {
>  		.gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL,
>  		.may_unmap = 0,
> +		.swap_cluster_max = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
> +		.swappiness = vm_swappiness,
>  		.may_writepage = 1,
>  		.isolate_pages = isolate_pages_global,
>  	};
>   


No, that doesn't seem to affect it.

Thanks
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/