[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100122103830.6C09.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:42:12 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
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)
> > > 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.
--
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