linux-kernel - Re: [Update][PATCH] MM / PM: Force GFP_NOIO during suspend/hibernation and resume

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: <4B5E1281.7090700@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:52:01 +0300
From:	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	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: [Update][PATCH] MM / PM: Force GFP_NOIO during suspend/hibernation
 and resume

Rafael J. Wysocki пишет:
> On Saturday 23 January 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 22:19 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: 
>>> On Friday 22 January 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Thanks for testing.
>> I'll test that too, soon.
>> Just to note that I left my hibernate loop run overnight, and now I am
>> posting from my notebook after it did 590 hibernate cycles.
> 
> Did you have a chance to test it?
> 
>> Offtopic, but Note that to achieve that I had to stop using global acpi
>> hardware lock. I tried all kinds of things, but for now it just hands
>> from time to time.
>> See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14668
> 
> I'm going to look at that later this week, although I'm not sure I can do more
> than Alex about that.
> 
> Rafael
Rafael,
If you can point to where one may insert callback to be called just before handing control to resume kernel,
it may help...

Regards,
Alex.



--
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/