From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965051AbWDHXYi (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:24:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965053AbWDHXYi (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:24:38 -0400 Received: from mail25.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.133.166]:20916 "EHLO mail25.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965051AbWDHXYh (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:24:37 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Userland swsusp failure (mm-related) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 09:24:04 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , Fabio Comolli , Nick Piggin References: <20060408161555.GA1722@elf.ucw.cz> <200604090047.17372.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <200604090047.17372.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604090924.04951.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 09 April 2006 08:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > On Saturday 08 April 2006 18:15, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > This is my first (and unique) failure since I began testing uswsusp > > > > (2.6.17-rc1 version). It happened (I think) because more than 50% of > > > > physical memory was occupied at suspend time (about 550 megs out og > > > > 1G) and that was what I was trying to test. After freeing some memory > > > > suspend worked (there was no need to reboot). > > > > > > Well, it looks like we didn't free enough RAM for suspend in this case. > > > Unfortunately we were below the min watermark for ZONE_NORMAL and > > > we tried to allocate with GFP_ATOMIC (Nick, shouldn't we fall back to > > > ZONE_DMA in this case?). > > > > > > I think we can safely ignore the watermarks in swsusp, so probably > > > we can set PF_MEMALLOC for the current task temporarily and reset > > > it when we have allocated memory. Pavel, what do you think? > > > > Seems little hacky but okay to me. > > > > Should not fixing "how much to free" computation to free a bit more be > > enough to handle this? > > Yes, but in that case we'll leave some memory unused. ;-) How's the shrink_all_memory tweaks I sent performing for you Rafael? It may theoretically be prone to the same issue but I tried to make it less likely. -- -ck