linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Force GFP_NOIO during suspend/resume (was: Re: [linux-pm] Memory allocations in .suspend became very unreliable)

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: <1264155067.15930.4.camel@maxim-laptop>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:11:07 +0200
From:	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Force GFP_NOIO during suspend/resume (was:
 Re: [linux-pm] Memory allocations in .suspend became very unreliable)

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.

Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky

--
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/