From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932481Ab0HXWyI (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:54:08 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:52179 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932414Ab0HXWx6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:53:58 -0400 X-Mailbox-Line: From gregkh@clark.site Tue Aug 24 15:25:24 2010 Message-Id: <20100824222524.826277150@clark.site> User-Agent: quilt/0.48-11.2 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:24:40 -0700 From: Greg KH To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Cc: stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Dave Airlie , Chris Wilson , KOSAKI Motohiro , Hugh Dickins Subject: [28/59] drm/i915: add reclaimable to i915 self-reclaimable page allocations In-Reply-To: <20100824224625.GA5449@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2.6.32-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. ------------------ From: Linus Torvalds commit cd9f040df6ce46573760a507cb88192d05d27d86 upstream. The hibernate issues that got fixed in commit 985b823b9192 ("drm/i915: fix hibernation since i915 self-reclaim fixes") turn out to have been incomplete. Vefa Bicakci tested lots of hibernate cycles, and without the __GFP_RECLAIMABLE flag the system eventually fails to resume. With the flag added, Vefa can apparently hibernate forever (or until he gets bored running his automated scripts, whichever comes first). The reclaimable flag was there originally, and was one of the flags that were dropped (unintentionally) by commit 4bdadb978569 ("drm/i915: Selectively enable self-reclaim") that introduced all these problems, but I didn't want to just blindly add back all the flags in commit 985b823b9192, and it looked like __GFP_RECLAIM wasn't necessary. It clearly was. I still suspect that there is some subtle reason we're missing that causes the problems, but __GFP_RECLAIMABLE is certainly not wrong to use in this context, and is what the code historically used. And we have no idea what the causes the corruption without it. Reported-and-tested-by: M. Vefa Bicakci Cc: Dave Airlie Cc: Chris Wilson Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Hugh Dickins Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c @@ -2264,6 +2264,7 @@ i915_gem_object_get_pages(struct drm_gem page = read_cache_page_gfp(mapping, i, GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_COLD | + __GFP_RECLAIMABLE | gfpmask); if (IS_ERR(page)) goto err_pages;