On Tuesday 05 May 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/power/process.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/power/process.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/power/process.c
> > @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
> > */
> > #define TIMEOUT (20 * HZ)
> >
> > +static bool tasks_frozen;
> > +
> > static inline int freezeable(struct task_struct * p)
> > {
> > if ((p == current) ||
> > @@ -120,6 +122,10 @@ int freeze_processes(void)
> > Exit:
> > BUG_ON(in_atomic());
> > printk("\n");
> > +
> > + if (!error)
> > + tasks_frozen = true;
> > +
> > return error;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -145,6 +151,8 @@ static void thaw_tasks(bool nosig_only)
> >
> > void thaw_processes(void)
> > {
> > + tasks_frozen = false;
> > +
> > printk("Restarting tasks ... ");
> > thaw_tasks(true);
> > thaw_tasks(false);
> > @@ -152,3 +160,7 @@ void thaw_processes(void)
> > printk("done.\n");
> > }
> >
> > +bool processes_are_frozen(void)
> > +{
> > + return tasks_frozen;
> > +}
> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/freezer.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/freezer.h
> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/freezer.h
> > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ extern int thaw_process(struct task_stru
> > extern void refrigerator(void);
> > extern int freeze_processes(void);
> > extern void thaw_processes(void);
> > +extern bool processes_are_frozen(void);
> >
> > static inline int try_to_freeze(void)
> > {
> > @@ -170,6 +171,7 @@ static inline int thaw_process(struct ta
> > static inline void refrigerator(void) {}
> > static inline int freeze_processes(void) { BUG(); return 0; }
> > static inline void thaw_processes(void) {}
> > +static inline bool processes_are_frozen(void) { return false; }
> >
> > static inline int try_to_freeze(void) { return 0; }
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/mm/page_alloc.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
> > #include <linux/page-isolation.h>
> > #include <linux/page_cgroup.h>
> > #include <linux/debugobjects.h>
> > +#include <linux/freezer.h>
> >
> > #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> > #include <asm/div64.h>
> > @@ -1599,7 +1600,8 @@ nofail_alloc:
> > zonelist, high_zoneidx, alloc_flags);
> > if (page)
> > goto got_pg;
> > - } else if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)) {
> > + } else if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
> > + && !processes_are_frozen()) {
> > if (!try_set_zone_oom(zonelist, gfp_mask)) {
> > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> > goto restart;
>
> Cool, that looks like the semantics of __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL without requiring
> a new gfp flag. Thanks.
Well, you're welcome.
BTW, I think that Andrew was actually right when he asked if I checked whether
the existing __GFP_NORETRY would work as-is for __GFP_FS set and
__GFP_NORETRY unset. Namely, in that case we never reach the code before
nopage: that checks __GFP_NORETRY, do we?
So I think we shouldn't modify the 'else if' condition above and check for
!processes_are_frozen() at the beginning of the block below.
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
