> Hello, > > When I apply both of the patches, then I don't get any hangs with > hibernation. However, I do get another problem, which I am not sure > is related or not. I should note that I haven't experienced this > with only the vmscan.c patch, but maybe I haven't repeated my test > enough times. > > One test consists of an automated run of 7 hibernate/thaw cycles. > > Here's what I got in dmesg in two of the iterations in one test. > Sorry for the long e-mail and the long lines. > > === 8< === > [ 166.512085] PM: Hibernation mode set to 'reboot' > [ 166.516503] PM: Marking nosave pages: 000000000009f000 - 0000000000100000 > [ 166.517654] PM: Basic memory bitmaps created > [ 166.518781] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done. > [ 166.546308] Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done. > [ 166.559596] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done. > [ 166.571649] PM: Preallocating image memory... > [ 185.712457] iwl3945: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0xd0 > [ 185.714564] Pid: 1225, comm: iwl3945 Not tainted 2.6.35.4-test-mm5v2-vmscan+snapshot-dirty #7 > [ 185.715741] Call Trace: > [ 185.716853] [<c019aa67>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x577/0x630 > [ 185.718126] [<f8a562c5>] ? iwl3945_rx_allocate+0x75/0x240 [iwl3945] > [ 185.719379] [<c03f0516>] ? schedule+0x356/0x730 > [ 185.720556] [<f8a56d50>] ? iwl3945_rx_replenish+0x20/0x50 [iwl3945] > [ 185.721914] [<f8a56dbc>] ? iwl3945_bg_rx_replenish+0x3c/0x50 [iwl3945] > [ 185.723929] [<c014b167>] ? worker_thread+0x117/0x1f0 > [ 185.725745] [<f8a56d80>] ? iwl3945_bg_rx_replenish+0x0/0x50 [iwl3945] > [ 185.727097] [<c014ebd0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40 > [ 185.728468] [<c014b050>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0x1f0 > [ 185.730235] [<c014e854>] ? kthread+0x74/0x80 > [ 185.731601] [<c014e7e0>] ? kthread+0x0/0x80 > [ 185.732919] [<c0103cb6>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10 Hm, interesting. Rafael's patch seems works intentionally. preallocate much much memory and release over allocated memory. But on your system, iwl3945 allocate memory concurrently. If it try to allocate before the hibernation code release extra memory, It may get allocation failure. So, I'm not sure wich behavior is desired. 1) preallocate enough much memory pros) hibernate faster cons) failure risk of network card memory allocation 2) preallocate small memory pros) hibernate slower cons) don't makes network card memory allocation But, I wonder why this kernel thread is not frozen. afaik, hibernation doesn't need network capability. Is this really intentional? Rafael, Could you please explain the design of hibernation and your intention? Vefa, note: this allocation failure doesn't makes any problem. this mean network card can't receive one network packet. But while hibernation, we always can't receive network patchet. so no problem. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
