[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090514094046.GF6417@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:40:46 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nigel@...onice.net,
rientjes@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] PM/Hibernate: Rework shrinking of memory
> > > > The main point (I thought) was to remove shrink_all_memory(). Instead,
> > > > we're retaining it and adding even more stuff?
> > >
> > > The idea is that afterwards we can drop shrink_all_memory() once the
> > > performance problem has been resolved. Also, we now allocate memory for the
> > > image using GFP_KERNEL instead of doing it with GFP_ATOMIC after freezing
> > > devices. I'd think that's an improvement?
> >
> > Dunno. GFP_KERNEL might attempt to do writeback/swapout/etc, which
> > could be embarrassing if the devices are frozen.
>
> They aren't, because the preallocation is done upfront, so once the OOM killer
> has been taken care of, it's totally safe. :-)
As is GFP_ATOMIC. Except that GFP_KERNEL will cause catastrophic
consequences when accounting goes wrong. (New kernel's idea of what is
on disk will differ from what is _really_ on disk.)
If accounting is right, GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL is equivalent.
If accounting is wrong, GFP_ATOMIC will fail with NULL, while
GFP_KERNEL will do something bad.
I'd keep GFP_ATOMIC (or GFP_NOIO or similar).
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists