From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932152AbZEAWbp (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 18:31:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764924AbZEAWbJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 18:31:09 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:56697 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764799AbZEAWbF (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 18:31:05 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Andrew Morton Subject: [PATCH 0/3] PM: Drop shrink_all_memory (was: Re: [Bug #13058] First hibernation attempt fails) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 00:26:18 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.30-rc4-rjw; KDE/4.2.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: pavel@ucw.cz, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org, pm list References: <200904222211.18221.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090422131943.69288af3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090422131943.69288af3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200905020026.19027.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 22 April 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:11:17 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > On Wednesday 22 April 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > Of course, this will protect the calling task from getting oom-killed. > > > > But it doesn't protect other tasks from getting oom-killed due to the > > > > activity of _this_ task. > > > > > > > > But I think that problem already exists, and that this proposal doesn't > > > > worsen anything, yes? > > > > > > > > Or is it the case that all other tasks are safely stuck in the freezer > > > > at this time, so they won't be allocating any memory anyway? > > > > > > That is the idea, yes. ... but we now have more threads that are not > > > freezable... so they may allocate the memory. > > > > > > Is it non-feasible to free memory without really going and allocating > > > everything? > > > > The question is whether there is a point. In principle we can just go and > > allocate as much as we need upfront. It shouldn't change anything, because > > we resume and suspend devices after creating the image anyway. > > > > I think we could try to disable the OOM killer before suspend and just > > allocate the memory for the image right before devices are suspended for the > > first time. > > > > It would be nice to do. > > shrink_all_memory() is simply trying to do something which page reclaim > doesn't expect to do (free memory when there's already lots of memory > free). Consequently it doesn't do it very well, and there's a good > risk that changes to core reclaim will accidentally break > shrink_all_memory(). OK, a patchset follows: [1/3] - disable the OOM killer during system-wide power transitions (should be done anyway IMO) [2/3] - move swsusp_shrink_memory() to kernel/power/snapshot.c so that the next patch is easier to read [3/3] - drop shrink_all_memory() Please have a look and tell me what you think. Thanks, Rafael From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: [PATCH 0/3] PM: Drop shrink_all_memory (was: Re: [Bug #13058] First hibernation attempt fails) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 00:26:18 +0200 Message-ID: <200905020026.19027.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200904222211.18221.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090422131943.69288af3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090422131943.69288af3.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Andrew Morton Cc: pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, alan-jenkins-cCz0Lq7MMjm9FHfhHBbuYA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, pm list On Wednesday 22 April 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:11:17 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > On Wednesday 22 April 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > Of course, this will protect the calling task from getting oom-killed. > > > > But it doesn't protect other tasks from getting oom-killed due to the > > > > activity of _this_ task. > > > > > > > > But I think that problem already exists, and that this proposal doesn't > > > > worsen anything, yes? > > > > > > > > Or is it the case that all other tasks are safely stuck in the freezer > > > > at this time, so they won't be allocating any memory anyway? > > > > > > That is the idea, yes. ... but we now have more threads that are not > > > freezable... so they may allocate the memory. > > > > > > Is it non-feasible to free memory without really going and allocating > > > everything? > > > > The question is whether there is a point. In principle we can just go and > > allocate as much as we need upfront. It shouldn't change anything, because > > we resume and suspend devices after creating the image anyway. > > > > I think we could try to disable the OOM killer before suspend and just > > allocate the memory for the image right before devices are suspended for the > > first time. > > > > It would be nice to do. > > shrink_all_memory() is simply trying to do something which page reclaim > doesn't expect to do (free memory when there's already lots of memory > free). Consequently it doesn't do it very well, and there's a good > risk that changes to core reclaim will accidentally break > shrink_all_memory(). OK, a patchset follows: [1/3] - disable the OOM killer during system-wide power transitions (should be done anyway IMO) [2/3] - move swsusp_shrink_memory() to kernel/power/snapshot.c so that the next patch is easier to read [3/3] - drop shrink_all_memory() Please have a look and tell me what you think. Thanks, Rafael