Messages in this thread |  | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | | Subject | Re: 2.6.35.5: hibernation broken... AGAIN | | Date | Wed, 1 Dec 2010 22:25:40 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday, December 01, 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:38:53 +0100 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 01, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 30, 2010, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2010, Ondrej Zary wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > Trivial point, I suppose, but it bothers me that PM is accumulating > > > > wrappers around wrappers around gfp_allowed_mask. Looks like > > > > clear_gfp_allowed_mask and set_gfp_allowed_mask (oddly asymmetrical) > > > > were not really what we need. How about scrapping them, and putting > > > > pm_restrict_gfp_mask() and pm_restore_gfp_mask() into page_alloc.c? > > > > > > Sure, that sounds like a good idea indeed. > > > > Below is an updated patch in which I tried to address your comments. > > > > I didn't find it very useful to couple pm_restore_gfp_mask() with the thawing > > of tasks, but nevertheless I think all of the spots where it's needed are > > covered now. > > > > The patch has only been compile-tested for now, so caveat emptor. > > > > Hmm, can't we have some error check as > > > +static gfp_t saved_gfp_mask; > > atomic_t gfp_mask_save_mode_counter; > > > + > > +void pm_restore_gfp_mask(void) > > { > > WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&pm_mutex)); > > - gfp_allowed_mask = mask; > > if (atomic_dec_return(&gfp_mask_save_mode_counter)) > WARN_ONCE() > > > + if (saved_gfp_mask) { > > + gfp_allowed_mask = saved_gfp_mask; > > + saved_gfp_mask = 0; > > + } > > } > > > +void pm_restrict_gfp_mask(void) > > { > > - gfp_t ret = gfp_allowed_mask; > > - > > WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&pm_mutex)); > > - gfp_allowed_mask &= ~mask; > > - return ret; > > + saved_gfp_mask = gfp_allowed_mask; > > + gfp_allowed_mask &= ~GFP_IOFS; > > if (atomic_inc_return(&gfp_mask_save_mode_counter) > 1) > WARN_ONCE() > > or some ?
What exactly would that be useful for?
Rafael
|  |