[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100903085756.B657.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:13:37 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
"M. Vefa Bicakci" <bicave@...eronline.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Bisected Regression in 2.6.35] A full tmpfs filesystem causeshibernation to hang
Hello,
> > > > Like in the patch below, perhaps?
> > >
> > > Looks like fine. but I have one question. hibernate_preallocate_memory() call
> > > preallocate_image_memory() two times. Why do you only care latter one?
> > > former one seems similar risk.
> >
> > The first one is mandatory, ie. if we can't allocate the requested number of
> > pages at this point, we fail the entire hibernation. In that case the
> > performance hit doesn't matter.
>
> IOW, your patch at http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/9/2/262 is still necessary to
> protect against the infinite loop in that case.
As far as I understand, we need distinguish two allocation failure.
1) failure because no enough memory
-> yes, hibernation should fail
2) failure because already allocated enough lower zone memory
-> why should we fail?
If the system has a lot of memory, scenario (2) is happen frequently than (1).
I think we need check alloc_highmem and alloc_normal variable and call
preallocate_image_highmem() again instead preallocate_image_memory()
if we've alread allocated enough lots normal memory.
nit?
--
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