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

KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-01-21T00:47:26Z

> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > Do you mean this is the unrelated issue of nVidia bug?
>
> The nvidia driver _is_ buggy, but Maxim said he couldn't reproduce the
> problem if all the allocations made by the nvidia driver during suspend
> were changed to GFP_ATOMIC.
>
> > Probably I haven't catch your point. I don't find Maxim's original bug
> > report. Can we share the test-case and your analysis detail?
>
> The Maxim's original report is here:
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-January/023982.html
>
> and the message I'm referring to is at:
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-January/023990.html

Hmmm...

Usually, Increasing I/O isn't caused MM change. either subsystem change
memory alloc/free pattern and another subsystem receive such effect ;)
I don't think this message indicate MM fault.

And, 2.6.33 MM change is not much. if the fault is in MM change
(note: my guess is no), The most doubtful patch is my "killing shrink_all_zones"
patch. If old shrink_all_zones reclaimed memory much rather than required.
The patch fixed it. IOW, the patch can reduce available free memory to be used
buggy .suspend of the driver. but I don't think it is MM fault.

As I said, drivers can't use memory freely as their demand in suspend method.
It's obvious. They should stop such unrealistic assumption. but How should we fix
this?
- Gurantee suspend I/O device at last?
- Make much much free memory before calling .suspend method? even though
typical drivers don't need.
- Ask all drivers how much they require memory before starting suspend and
Make enough free memory at first?
- Or, do we have an alternative way?

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.