Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Force GFP_NOIO during suspend/resume (was: Re: [linux-pm] Memory allocations in .suspend became very unreliable)

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> > > Probably we have multiple option. but I don't think GFP_NOIO is good
> > > option. It assume the system have lots non-dirty cache memory and it isn't
> > > guranteed.
> > 
> > Basically nothing is guaranteed in this case.  However, does it actually make
> > things _worse_?  
> 
> Hmm..
> Do you mean we don't need to prevent accidental suspend failure?
> Perhaps, I did misunderstand your intention. If you think your patch solve
> this this issue, I still disagree. but If you think your patch mitigate
> the pain of this issue, I agree it. I don't have any reason to oppose your
> first patch.

One question. Have anyone tested Rafael's $subject patch? 
Please post test result. if the issue disapper by the patch, we can
suppose the slowness is caused by i/o layer.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/