Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:53:49 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.35.5: hibernation broken... AGAIN |
| |
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 ?
Thanks, -Kame
| |