On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 10:42 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > 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. I did. As far as I could see, patch does solve the problem I described. Does it affect speed of suspend? I can't say for sure. It seems to be the same. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
