[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200912030022.54027.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 00:22:53 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uswsusp: automatically free the in-memory image once s2disk has finished with it
On Wednesday 02 December 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 11:15:24PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Wed 2009-12-02 22:07:18, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:11:07PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > On Wed 2009-12-02 14:28:12, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> > > > > The original in-kernel suspend (swsusp) frees the in-memory hibernation
> > > > > image before powering off the machine. s2disk doesn't, so there is
> > > > > _much_ less free memory when it tries to power off.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a gratuitous difference. The userspace suspend interface
> > > > > /dev/snapshot only allows the hibernation image to be read once.
> > > > > Once the s2disk program has read the last page, we can free the entire
> > > > > image.
> > > > >
> > > > > This avoids a hang after writing the hibernation image which was
> > > > > triggered by commit 5f8dcc21211a3d4e3a7a5ca366b469fb88117f61
> > > > > "page-allocator: split per-cpu list into one-list-per-migrate-type":
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you work around page-allocator hang. But is it right thing to do?
> > > >
> > >
> > > What's wrong with it? The hang is likely because the allocator has no
> > > memory to work with. The patch in question makes small changes to the
> > > amount of available memory but it shouldn't matter on uni-core. Some
> > > structures are slightly larger but it's extremely borderline. I'm at a
> > > loss to explain actually why it makes a difference untill things were
> > > extremely borderline to begin with.
> >
> > We reserve 4MB, for such purposes, and we already wrote image to disk
> > with such constrains, so memory should not be _too_ tight.
> >
> > Can you try increasing PAGES_FOR_IO to 8MB or something like that?
> >
>
> What's wrong with just freeing the memory that is no longer required?
Nothing, and the Alan's patch is going to Linus.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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