[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm] swsusp: support creating bigger images (rev. 2)
    "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> wrote:
    > On Wednesday 10 May 2006 00:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Now if the mapped pages that are not mapped by the
    > > > current task are considered, it turns out that they would change only if they
    > > > were reclaimed by try_to_free_pages().  Thus if we take them out of reach
    > > > of try_to_free_pages(), for example by (temporarily) moving them out of their
    > > > respective LRU lists after creating the image, we will be able to include them
    > > > in the image without copying.
    > >
    > > I'm a bit curious about how this is true. There are all sorts of way in
    > > which there could be activity against these pages - interrupt-time
    > > asynchronous network Tx completion, async interrupt-time direct-io
    > > completion, tasklets, schedule_work(), etc, etc.
    > AFAIK, many of these things are waited for uninterruptibly, and uninterruptible
    > tasks cannot be frozen.

    There can be situations where we won't be waiting on this IO at all.
    Network zero-copy transmit, for example.

    Or maybe there's some async writeback going on against pagecache - we'll
    end up looking at the page's LRU state within interrupt context at IO
    completion. (A sync would prevent this from happening).

    One possibly problematic scenario is where task A is doing a direct-IO read
    and task B truncates the same file - here, the page will be actually
    removed from the LRU and freed in interrupt context. The direct-IO read
    process will be waiting on the IO in D state though. It it was a
    synchronous read - if it was an AIO read then it won't be waiting on the
    IO. Something else might save us here, but it's fragile.

    > Theoretically we may have a problem if there's an
    > interruptible task that waits for the completion of an operation that gets
    > finished after snapshotting the system. However that would have to survive the
    > syncing of filesystems, freezing of kernel threads, freeing of memory as well
    > as suspending and resuming all devices. [In which case it would be starving
    > to death. :-)]

    hm. It's all a bit of a worry. I don't understand what swsusp is trying
    to do here sufficiently well to be able to advise, sorry. I was rather
    surprised to learn that it's presently taking copies of all these pages...
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-05-11 01:44    [W:0.026 / U:154.856 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site