On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:23:31 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:

quoted text
> On Wednesday, December 01, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 01, 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:38:53 +0100
> > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wednesday, December 01, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, November 30, 2010, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2010, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Trivial point, I suppose, but it bothers me that PM is accumulating
> > > > > > wrappers around wrappers around gfp_allowed_mask.  Looks like
> > > > > > clear_gfp_allowed_mask and set_gfp_allowed_mask (oddly asymmetrical)
> > > > > > were not really what we need.  How about scrapping them, and putting
> > > > > > pm_restrict_gfp_mask() and pm_restore_gfp_mask() into page_alloc.c?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sure, that sounds like a good idea indeed.
> > > > 
> > > > Below is an updated patch in which I tried to address your comments.
> > > > 
> > > > I didn't find it very useful to couple pm_restore_gfp_mask() with the thawing
> > > > of tasks, but nevertheless I think all of the spots where it's needed are
> > > > covered now.
> > > > 
> > > > The patch has only been compile-tested for now, so caveat emptor.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hmm, can't we have some error check as 
> > > 
> > > > +static gfp_t saved_gfp_mask;
> > > 
> > > atomic_t gfp_mask_save_mode_counter;
> > > 
> > > > +
> > > > +void pm_restore_gfp_mask(void)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&pm_mutex));
> > > > -	gfp_allowed_mask = mask;
> > > 
> > > 	if (atomic_dec_return(&gfp_mask_save_mode_counter))
> > > 		WARN_ONCE()
> > > 
> > > > +	if (saved_gfp_mask) {
> > > > +		gfp_allowed_mask = saved_gfp_mask;
> > > > +		saved_gfp_mask = 0;
> > > > +	}
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > > +void pm_restrict_gfp_mask(void)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	gfp_t ret = gfp_allowed_mask;
> > > > -
> > > >  	WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&pm_mutex));
> > > > -	gfp_allowed_mask &= ~mask;
> > > > -	return ret;
> > > > +	saved_gfp_mask = gfp_allowed_mask;
> > > > +	gfp_allowed_mask &= ~GFP_IOFS;
> > > 
> > > 	if (atomic_inc_return(&gfp_mask_save_mode_counter) > 1)
> > > 		WARN_ONCE()
> > > 
> > > or some ?
> > 
> > What exactly would that be useful for?
> 
> Please note that pm_restore_gfp_mask() can be legitimately called before
> pm_restrict_gfp_mask() via the SNAPSHOT_CREATE_IMAGE hibernate ioctl, so the
> test you're suggesting wouldn't really work.
> 

Hm, I just wonder some tests not for breaking gfp_allowed_mask by
 - double call
 - forget to restore
That will be fatal.

I'm not very interested in implementation detail

Thanks,
-Kame



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